Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Quote:

Austin's sample was indisputably recent, whatever one may think of him personally or professionally.

That could have been established by normal photography,not radioisotope fraud. When Austin knew perfectly well that Ar was gonna be "degassed" he was betting that the results of the sample would come back looking old. Thats a crock of fraud.
When you use your credibility or expertise in a methodology that is meant to decieve the audience, thats fraud and magic. You cannot defend him, just admit it and leave it lay. You wont win.

My reaction to Austin as a person is
1 I dont know him personally although he gave a talk once and we had chances to discuss his points

2As a scientist who purposely tries to decieve , he should be shunned by real scientists and , to try to use science to convince Creationists of the scientific validity of their belief is pitiful and makes you a victim of this deceipt (if you believe him)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable.

xingu,

That's kinda the point, isn't it?

If the earth is 'young', then many of the methods currently in use will give false dates indicating an 'old earth', will they not?

Farmerman,

Austin's sample was indisputably recent, whatever one may think of him personally or professionally.

I'm surprised you don't see the dishonesty in this Real.

Austin knew he couldn't get accurate results from this test because the equipment couldn't accurately measure samples less then 2 million years old. So why did he do it? Why did he purposely use a defective method of measurement and use that measurement to deceive people?

And why do you insist on believing people that use lies and deception, especially such an obvious one as this?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable.

xingu,

That's kinda the point, isn't it?

If the earth is 'young', then many of the methods currently in use will give false dates indicating an 'old earth', will they not?

Farmerman,

Austin's sample was indisputably recent, whatever one may think of him personally or professionally.

I'm surprised you don't see the dishonesty in this Real.

Austin knew he couldn't get accurate results from this test because the equipment couldn't accurately measure samples less then 2 million years old. So why did he do it? Why did he purposely use a defective method of measurement and use that measurement to deceive people?

And why do you insist on believing people that use lies and deception, especially such an obvious one as this?

I think he's insisting that ALL ROCKS are under 2 million years old therefore ALL MEASUREMENT are incorrect.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable.

xingu,

That's kinda the point, isn't it?

If the earth is 'young', then many of the methods currently in use will give false dates indicating an 'old earth', will they not?

Farmerman,

Austin's sample was indisputably recent, whatever one may think of him personally or professionally.

I'm surprised you don't see the dishonesty in this Real.

Austin knew he couldn't get accurate results from this test because the equipment couldn't accurately measure samples less then 2 million years old. So why did he do it? Why did he purposely use a defective method of measurement and use that measurement to deceive people?

And why do you insist on believing people that use lies and deception, especially such an obvious one as this?

I think he's insisting that ALL ROCKS are under 2 million years old therefore ALL MEASUREMENT are incorrect.

If that's the case why does K/Ag work on older rocks. If Austin wanted to prove K/Ag didn't work why didn't he select rocks that geologist insist are older than 2 million years old. By selecting rocks everyone knows are young and running a test you know will give false results is not the way to prove the tests are inaccurate or all rocks are young. It is a way to show your dishonesty.

Hell man if I gave Real a laser light and a stopwatch and told him to measure the speed of light am I suppose to believe his measurments over what science measures? Of course not. You can't measure the speed of light that way any more than you can measure the age of young rocks by K/Ag.

Since there are other methods to date young rocks why didn't Austin use them rather than something he knew would give a false result?

The reason is he wanted a false result to come up with a false conclusion.

He's a fraud.

0 Replies

xingu, The reason it works is simply because many want to believe the young earth dictum. That goes hand-in-hand with all religious' belief; only see what one wants to see.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

maporsche wrote:
xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable.

xingu,

That's kinda the point, isn't it?

If the earth is 'young', then many of the methods currently in use will give false dates indicating an 'old earth', will they not?

Farmerman,

Austin's sample was indisputably recent, whatever one may think of him personally or professionally.

I'm surprised you don't see the dishonesty in this Real.

Austin knew he couldn't get accurate results from this test because the equipment couldn't accurately measure samples less then 2 million years old. So why did he do it? Why did he purposely use a defective method of measurement and use that measurement to deceive people?

And why do you insist on believing people that use lies and deception, especially such an obvious one as this?

I think he's insisting that ALL ROCKS are under 2 million years old therefore ALL MEASUREMENT are incorrect.

If that's the case why does K/Ag work on older rocks.

xingu,

Your assumption[/i] is that they are older and the method 'proves'[/i] it, eh?

Do you not see the circularity of your argument?

0 Replies

I'm not a geologist, so this may be a dumb question...

But if I find a rock, and I have no idea where it came from or how old it is, how do I figure out how old it is?

What dating method do I start with?

Do I have to start with any assumptions or do I just start testing it?

0 Replies

I trust farmerman is best qualified to answer your q.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I'm not a geologist, so this may be a dumb question...

But if I find a rock, and I have no idea where it came from or how old it is, how do I figure out how old it is?

What dating method do I start with?

Do I have to start with any assumptions or do I just start testing it?

The fewer assumptions, the better, I assume. :wink:

Better to end up with an answer 'I don't know' than an answer that relies on a circular argument to support an assumption.

But scientists don't get paid well for 'I don't know', so...............

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The fewer assumptions, the better, I assume. :wink:

Better to end up with an answer 'I don't know' than an answer that relies on a circular argument to support an assumption.

Obviously.

real life wrote:

But scientists don't get paid well for 'I don't know', so...............

Now you're implying that scientists make up answers when they don't know something just they will get paid more?

0 Replies

rosborne, That's typical real response; attack the messenger when they don't like the answer. They ignore the scientific method, and question how evidence that is provided can be reliable. Typical.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

rosborne, That's typical real response; attack the messenger when they don't like the answer. They ignore the scientific method, and question how evidence that is provided can be reliable. Typical.

I know. But I'm more interested in how geological samples are dated when we don't know anything about them to start with.

Different dating techniques don't work on different samples, so if you make no assumptions about your sample to start with, then how do you know which dating technique to start with?

0 Replies

I suggest blind dating, or even sexier double blind :wink:

0 Replies

That's the reason I said farmerman is probably the most qualified to answer your q.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu,

Your assumption is that they are older and the method 'proves' it, eh?

Do you not see the circularity of your argument?

You say I have a cirular argument.

You believe all rocks are young because the Bible says so.
To prove it your going to do a test that you know will give you a false result.
You do the test and the result is false.
The false result proves the test is false and all rocks are young.
You know this because the Bible says so.

That's called Creationist science.

Science carries far more truth and honesty than Biblical mythologies and Creationist methodologies.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
xingu,

Your assumption is that they are older and the method 'proves' it, eh?

Do you not see the circularity of your argument?

You say I have a cirular argument.

You believe all rocks are young because the Bible says so.
To prove it your going to do a test that you know will give you a false result.
You do the test and the result is false.
The false result proves the test is false and all rocks are young.
You know this because the Bible says so.

That's called Creationist science.

Science carries far more truth and honesty than Biblical mythologies and Creationist methodologies.

So, when you go to test a sample, and it 'shows' a date of 2 million years, you 'know' it must be so, because you ASSUME that it is, correct?

If the formation is of recent origin, such as Mt St Helens, then your 'dating method' would yield a false date that you would defend based on your assumption only, correct?

i.e. 'it MUST be millions of years old because my method can ONLY measure things that are millions of years old'

Or as another has said, 'To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.'

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the reason I said farmerman is probably the most qualified to answer your q.

My feelings have been injuredirreparably Razz

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

They ignore the scientific method, and question how evidence that is provided can be reliable. Typical.

So, one cannot question that reliability of any evidence without being accused of 'attacking the Scientific Method', eh?

Pitiable.

0 Replies

Give me an example of your questioning scientifically derived evidence within the context of scientific methodology and how this supports your unscientifically derived belief in the supernatural and you'll provide some levity.

0 Replies

real, The scientific method is self-correcting based on more current knowledge, techniques, and/or equipment. What do you find so questionable about this process?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know