The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Thermal Detonator on May 12, 2010, 01:43:56 PM
-
Levee claims that the Earth is no more than 1000 years old. I wish Levee to come and explain in this thread why radiometric dating disagrees with this and is able to show that some things are many times older than that. I have to set up a seperate thread for this because most of his spouting of this bullsh*t belief is in a section closed to dissenters.
-
Wow, you're actually inviting a levee wall of unrelated, irrelevant, and poorly cited text?
-
Levee claims that the Earth is no more than 1000 years old. I wish Levee to come and explain in this thread why radiometric dating disagrees with this and is able to show that some things are many times older than that. I have to set up a seperate thread for this because most of his spouting of this bullsh*t belief is in a section closed to dissenters.
It is painfully obvious that even his fellow FE'ers do not take Levee seriously. I doubt that Levee himself does. It looks like to me that he is deliberately mocking the FES by making up the most ridiculous theories he can possibly imagine, and thereby trying to discredit the FES by its association with him and his wacko ideas. It is remarkable how he credulously accepts without question the most obscure, questionable and ridiculous sources that contradict conventional science and history, no matter how thoroughly the latter is substantiated by many centuries of careful observation, experimentation, measurement and documentation by the most brilliant people who have ever lived. I am convinced that Levee is either deliberately trying to set an all time record for absurdity, or certifiably insane.
-
Wow, you're actually inviting a levee wall of unrelated, irrelevant, and poorly cited text?
Yes. I like to live dangerously.
-
It is painfully obvious that even his fellow FE'ers do not take Levee seriously.
Ah yes, we know that, but as seen in the "Why is Levee a mod?" thread, the official view of Levee is that he is a fine, upstanding member of the FES who is worshipped by Wilhelm, James and John Davis and who never posts spam or irrelevance. Well, it's time for Levee to put his money where his wall of text is.
-
Levee claims that the Earth is no more than 1000 years old. I wish Levee to come and explain in this thread why radiometric dating disagrees with this and is able to show that some things are many times older than that. I have to set up a seperate thread for this because most of his spouting of this bullsh*t belief is in a section closed to dissenters.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=radiometric+dating+flaws
-
Levee claims that the Earth is no more than 1000 years old. I wish Levee to come and explain in this thread why radiometric dating disagrees with this and is able to show that some things are many times older than that. I have to set up a seperate thread for this because most of his spouting of this bullsh*t belief is in a section closed to dissenters.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=radiometric+dating+flaws
None of the sources on the first or second pages are able to refute that it is possible for a number of radiometric methods to be very accurate. Most of them focus on carbon-14 dating, which is quite susceptible to errors within a whole order of magnitude and is irrelevant to dating of geology where we are talking a scale of millions of years rather than thousands. Most of the sources that attempt to attack methods such as potassium-argon dating drivel on about the wide range of factors that can introduce errors into these measurements, and they are quite right, there ARE factors that can introduce errors. They ignore two crucial points though - it's possible to cross check a sample using several different types of dating to see if they agree and act as a form of calibration, and also the scientists doing the dating are quite aware of the sorts of error factors that can affect the result and try to account for them when they can. Even the worst errors are not bad enough to push the age range down to 1000 years.
Not only that but a lot of the info is just plain wrong - at least two sources on the first page smugly assert that we can't know when a rock was formed so we don't have anything to measure it against. Completely ignoring the volcanoes that are erupting all the time and giving us zero-baseline samples for comparison. Furthermore, another site gives examples of samples where scientists have supposedly fudged the data to fit the expected figures. Maybe they did. That's a couple of scientists. Not all of them. Yeah, some scientist claimed he'd done a skin transplant on a mouse by colouring its fur in with a marker pen. That doesn't mean all scientists would do that.
Even the boldest claims on those sites do not refute that many forms of dating are pretty good for ages way older than Levee's claim for the age of the earth.
-
Most of the sources that attempt to attack methods ... drivel on about the wide range of factors that can introduce errors into these measurements, and they are quite right, there ARE factors that can introduce errors. They ignore two crucial points though - it's possible to cross check a sample using several different types of dating to see if they agree and act as a form of calibration, and also the scientists doing the dating are quite aware of the sorts of error factors that can affect the result and try to account for them when they can. Even the worst errors are not bad enough to push the age range down to 1000 years.
Specialization => understand the theory, applicable methods, their limits => correct for error. Thermal hit the nail on the head. That is why it works [and requires an advanced degree].
The idea of parent nuclei decaying is pretty straightforward for probably just about everyone here, but some the nuances require more depth. Anyway...
Below is a link that explains most of the details of radiometric dating. It takes the format of some creationist saying that some aspect of radiometric dating is false, followed by a scientist who proceeds to refute that claim. Obviously some bias, but still helpful in clearing up misconceptions nonetheless. In my experience only creationists, and more recently people who have a beef against Climate Change bring this sort of thing up, so naturally geologists address their specific concerns 99pct of the time. As a heads up, there is a fair amount of material and topics covered, so it's not the quickest read. Also, plenty of references in case anyone finds a specific topic worth investigating.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
Obviously learning something that is incorrect in the first place, or misunderstanding the material, is much more harmful than being completely ignorant. Which seems to be the case with the arguments against this sort of thing. Understanding the limits and grey area of a field is just as important. Something can still be poorly understood but act predictably, therefore not damning the entire theory behind it. That's why we do research -- to understand every last knowable detail about everything! In case that sounds preachy, my apologies.
-
Ah,he must be a creationist.
-
None of the sources on the first or second pages are able to refute that it is possible for a number of radiometric methods to be very accurate.
How do you know they're accurate? Do you have a time machine?
-
We have evidence for entire complex societies over eight-thousand years ago.
Anyone claiming the Earth is ~1000 years old is either trolling, ignorant, or flat-out crazy.
Edit: perhaps its a form of Last Thursdayism? i.g. "The entire universe was created last Thursday with the appearance of age, and all memories of before then were fabricated."
-
the chinese civilization has been around since almost 2000 B.C. and they have the records to show you
this is why we don't have nice things
-
None of the sources on the first or second pages are able to refute that it is possible for a number of radiometric methods to be very accurate.
How do you know they're accurate? Do you have a time machine?
Why don't you read up on them, you lazy git? Then you'll understand radiometric dating (which you clearly don't at the moment). Or are you afraid to open any book which isn't Earth Not A Globe in case modern science makes your eyeballs burst?
-
Levee claims that the Earth is no more than 1000 years old. I wish Levee to come and explain in this thread why radiometric dating disagrees with this and is able to show that some things are many times older than that. I have to set up a seperate thread for this because most of his spouting of this bullsh*t belief is in a section closed to dissenters.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=radiometric+dating+flaws
So... all I got from that is creationists think carbon-14 dating should be used to date things 10x the age that it is useful then claim the results show that they are right.
-
None of the sources on the first or second pages are able to refute that it is possible for a number of radiometric methods to be very accurate.
How do you know they're accurate? Do you have a time machine?
I have a time machine and I verified that they are all 100% correct.
-
Levee claims that the Earth is no more than 1000 years old. I wish Levee to come and explain in this thread why radiometric dating disagrees with this and is able to show that some things are many times older than that. I have to set up a seperate thread for this because most of his spouting of this bullsh*t belief is in a section closed to dissenters.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=radiometric+dating+flaws
So... all I got from that is creationists think carbon-14 dating should be used to date things 10x the age that it is useful then claim the results show that they are right.
Yep. That's a good summary there Raist. This is why I want Levee to come in and defend himself here, since I am forbidden from challenging him in his own arena and the Three Sycophants just accept his laxity.
-
This is why I want Levee to come in and defend himself here, since I am forbidden from challenging him in his own arena and the Three Sycophants just accept his laxity.
Well, good luck with that.
-
None of the sources on the first or second pages are able to refute that it is possible for a number of radiometric methods to be very accurate.
How do you know they're accurate? Do you have a time machine?
Why don't you read up on them, you lazy git? Then you'll understand radiometric dating (which you clearly don't at the moment). Or are you afraid to open any book which isn't Earth Not A Globe in case modern science makes your eyeballs burst?
Radiometric dating methods won't do us any good if we don't know if the basic principles are accurate or not.
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
-
None of the sources on the first or second pages are able to refute that it is possible for a number of radiometric methods to be very accurate.
How do you know they're accurate? Do you have a time machine?
Why don't you read up on them, you lazy git? Then you'll understand radiometric dating (which you clearly don't at the moment). Or are you afraid to open any book which isn't Earth Not A Globe in case modern science makes your eyeballs burst?
Radiometric dating methods won't do us any good if we don't know if the basic principles are accurate or not.
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
This man knows nothing of science. I discard him.
-
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
lrn2extrapolate
-
I think tom is saying that half-lives of 4billion years is untestable, therefore not really science.
while he is kinda ignoring the mathematicals, he poses a solid point until we can show him that half lives are legit
-
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
lrn2extrapolate
Learn to have a testable hypothesis.
-
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
lrn2extrapolate
Learn to have a testable hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Formulas_for_half-life_in_exponential_decay
-
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
lrn2extrapolate
Learn to have a testable hypothesis.
If the half life of atom xyz is 4,000 years, there should be a decay of x atoms in x years.
Wow, a testable hypothesis.
-
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
lrn2extrapolate
Learn to have a testable hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Formulas_for_half-life_in_exponential_decay
Formulas don't sound like tests to me.
-
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
lrn2extrapolate
Learn to have a testable hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Formulas_for_half-life_in_exponential_decay
Formulas don't sound like tests to me.
You didn't ask for tests, you asked for a testable hypothesis. According to those formulas, a percentage of a sample of radioactive material will decay over a period of time. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me.
-
Where's Levee? Is he going to man up and address this?
-
I think his second and third to last new posts in his FAQ are somehow aimed at this thread. Not really sure though :/.
-
I think his second and third to last new posts in his FAQ are somehow aimed at this thread. Not really sure though :/.
He should have the balls to post in a thread that us mere plebs can respond in.
-
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
lrn2extrapolate
Learn to have a testable hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Formulas_for_half-life_in_exponential_decay
Formulas don't sound like tests to me.
You didn't ask for tests, you asked for a testable hypothesis. According to those formulas, a percentage of a sample of radioactive material will decay over a period of time. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me.
No, it sounds like formulas that could easily generate a testable hypothesis. Please don't confuse theory with hypothesis, it simply feeds his trollage.
-
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
lrn2extrapolate
Learn to have a testable hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Formulas_for_half-life_in_exponential_decay
Formulas don't sound like tests to me.
You didn't ask for tests, you asked for a testable hypothesis. According to those formulas, a percentage of a sample of radioactive material will decay over a period of time. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me.
Unfortunately, the hypothesis was never tested.
-
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
lrn2extrapolate
Learn to have a testable hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Formulas_for_half-life_in_exponential_decay
Formulas don't sound like tests to me.
You didn't ask for tests, you asked for a testable hypothesis. According to those formulas, a percentage of a sample of radioactive material will decay over a period of time. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me.
Unfortunately, the hypothesis was never tested.
You have proof of this?
-
You have proof of this?
Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.
-
You have proof of this?
Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.
That's the equivalent of someone saying that in order to gauge how fast a car is going, they actually have to watch it for an hour to get a mph reading. As it was said before, learn to extrapolate.
-
You have proof of this?
Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.
Who says that you have to watch exactly 1/2 of a sample of radioactive material decay in order to determine its half life? ???
-
You have proof of this?
Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.
Who says that you have to watch exactly 1/2 of a sample of radioactive material decay in order to determine its half life? ???
In addition, there are many well studied radioactive isotopes that have very short half lives. mathematically, they all behave the same way. This is a good indication that all radioactive isotopes decay in the same fashion... So unless you can procure some mystic force that magically affects the decay rate of any isotope, saying that we have no basis for estimating the specific decay rates for long-term isotopes is well, baseless.
-
That's the equivalent of someone saying that in order to gauge how fast a car is going, they actually have to watch it for an hour to get a mph reading. As it was said before, learn to extrapolate.
-
You have proof of this?
Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.
That's the equivalent of someone saying that in order to gauge how fast a car is going, they actually have to watch it for an hour to get a mph reading. As it was said before, learn to extrapolate.
Guessing isn't testing.
Anyone can guess. Unless you have a test to back up your hypothesis, it's worthless.
-
You have proof of this?
Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.
That's the equivalent of someone saying that in order to gauge how fast a car is going, they actually have to watch it for an hour to get a mph reading. As it was said before, learn to extrapolate.
Guessing isn't testing.
Anyone can guess. Unless you have a test to back up your hypothesis, it's worthless.
I made a hypothesis that is completely testable within any time scale.
Prove my hypothesis wrong.
-
You have proof of this?
Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.
You love the time machine argument. Someone should hop into a time machine, tell your parents what you're going to become, and see if they still try and have you.
-
Tom, I wonder, why do you even care about this topic?
-
You have proof of this?
Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.
You love the time machine argument. Someone should hop into a time machine, tell your parents what you're going to become, and see if they still try and have you.
Review the rules for the upper forums. This is a warning not to post content lacking posts especially if all they are is an attack.