Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable

On Jan 6, 3:22 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 6, 3:15 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jan 6, 9:29 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:21:43 -0800, Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:15 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:38 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip

Further the assumption inherent that one knows how much daughter
product was originally in the sample collected is tenuous if not
impossible to know.

Are you aware that you do not need to know the starting concentration
of the decay product to calculate a perfectly acceptable age using
isochron dating?

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

Chris

So classical  radiometric dating is so uncertain that you propose
isochron as a replacement.

Thanks for the admissiono of your faulty reasoning and fraudulent
post.......now we're getting somewhere.

 Ah. So every improvement is an admission of failure? Now I understand
why your arguments don't seem to be getting any better, and why
you're so resistant to learning any actual facts. We are getting
somewhere.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah the original claim was 5% for radiometric dating which applies
only to the best methods and full quantity samples, etc.  Thus
Isochrons were developed all the while the "classical methods" were
advertised as perfect, no problems, blah

I apologize. I made a rather serious error- tenfold!-  when I quoted
that 5% figure.

According to the US Geological Survey, the accuracy 40Ar/39Ar is
between 0.1-0.5%


http://creationwiki.org/Non-correlating_and_inconsistent_dates as an
example of imperfection in these techniques.


Too bad for your team, EP.

Chris
PS: Care to provide a cite for a scientist claiming perfection in
anything? The last one I can think of is Lord Kelvin claiming we knew
everything in physics that there was to know. That was just a couple
years before Einstein's "miracle year".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We can start right here "anything" "Nothing supernatural has ever
happened...everything that ever happened was natural...everything ever
seen, observed,etc, was natural.....100% of everything in the universe
is natural...etc."

This is called omnisience...what evos claim for themselves.

The way we know how old object A is for sure is when it falls within
the record keeping of human history...say an authenticated writing
stating a date found in proximity to the article. Everthing else is a
mathmatical model of physical processes based on a set of assumptions
and idealizations. There is a reason why labs refer to dating results
as "Apparent" age.

It seems perfectly rational to assume that the universe and everything
in it was created with Apparent age.

At any rate , no pun intended, I intend getting a copy of the RATE
project book and reading it.

.

Relevant Pages