1801 lava flow dated to be 3 billion years old

[Glass eye]

It's a "fact" potassium-argon dating and C14 dating are scientific proof and don't lie.


The age of moon rocks reported in the press is not as clear cut as it appears. Dates acceptable to preconceived theory have been generally published. Much less is said about unacceptable dates found by means of potassium-argon dating, all the way from 7 to 20 billion years in age. Rather than question the method and the assumptions underlying the method, the bad samples are regarded as 'contaminated.' A geophysical research journal reported that lava which formed in the year 1800-1801 was tested by the potassium-argon dating method and showed an age of 160 million up to 3 billion years in age. Other reports have been published of similar dates for young rocks in Norway, Germany, France, and the Soviet Union (Journal of Geophysical Research , July, 1968; CRSQ, 1970, 7:3, p.145; Time , 10/3/1969, p.72-74).



http://www.rae.org/ch04tud.html

[Glass eye]

Problems with C14 dating

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/R...bonDating.html

[HuntingAnywhere]

bottomline everything we know is inconclusive.

"what is it that we know, nothing. what is it that we need to know, nothing"

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HuntingAnywhere @ Jul 8 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

bottomline everything we know is inconclusive.

"what is it that we know, nothing. what is it that we need to know, nothing"[/b]

And yet these dating methods are published and taught as "facts" and the public accepts these "findings" as truth because scientist say so.

[HuntingAnywhere]

what do you think should be taught in school?

[Common Sense]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HuntingAnywhere @ Jul 8 2008, 10:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

what do you think should be taught in school?[/b]

Nothing.

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Common Sense @ Jul 8 2008, 10:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HuntingAnywhere @ Jul 8 2008, 10:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what do you think should be taught in school?[/b]

Nothing.
[/b][/quote]
That&#39;s right, nothing or all. The truth of C14 dating and potassium-argo dating should be taught as unreliable and based on assumtions, and open to a wide range of interpetations.

[HuntingAnywhere]

no math? no history?

[MULEY51]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Glass eye @ Jul 8 2008, 11:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Common Sense @ Jul 8 2008, 10:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HuntingAnywhere @ Jul 8 2008, 10:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what do you think should be taught in school?[/b]

Nothing.
[/b][/quote]
That&#39;s right, nothing or all. The truth of C14 dating and potassium-argo dating should be taught as unreliable and based on assumtions, and open to a wide range of interpetations.
[/b][/quote]


Same for evolution.

[jindydiver]

In attempting to refute science you use a site that pretends to use scientific method. All the references to CRSQ, as if they are a peer reviewed science journal, when a visit to CRSQ shows us that it is just a site where creationists can publish work (no matter how flawed)that supports the creation belief.
Any real refutation of the science would have to come from people (and a method) that did not have as it&#39;s starting point a belief that anything that contradicted the "word of god" was intrinsically flawed.
And how can we believe anything at all written on that page you linked to when we find that some of his references don&#39;t even exist? It is no wonder he doesn&#39;t have a bibliography on his site so we can further investigate his references

Do any of you guys really believe that their is a conspiracy amongst the many many thousands of scientists around the globe researching the earth sciences to promote a particular view? It is absurd

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jindydiver @ Jul 8 2008, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

.
Any real refutation of the science would have to come from people (and a method) that did not have as it&#39;s starting point a belief that anything that contradicted the "word of god" was intrinsically flawed.[/b]

This isn&#39;t a christian link
http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/R...bonDating.html

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jindydiver @ Jul 8 2008, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Any real refutation of the science would have to come from people (and a method) that did not have as it&#39;s starting point a belief that anything that contradicted the "word of god" was intrinsically flawed.[/b]

Any real refutation of the science would have to come from people ( and a method ) that did not have as its starting point a belief that anything that contradicted "evolution" was intrinsically flawed.

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jindydiver @ Jul 8 2008, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

In attempting to refute science you use a site that pretends to use scientific method. All the references to CRSQ, as if they are a peer reviewed science journal, when a visit to CRSQ shows us that it is just a site where creationists can publish work (no matter how flawed)that supports the creation belief.[/b]

Nether is this a christian site but at least they admit that C14 is flawed.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/...2_1/radio99.htm

[Glass eye]

This is from the above mentioned non-christian site. I pasted it here because you probably won&#39;t read the link.
Carbon 14 dating is based upon a number of important assumptions, but only one will be discussed here. In order to compare C14 dates meaningfully, we must assume that all organisms contained the same amount of C14 when they died. Otherwise, organisms with less C14 will appear older because there will be less C14 than expected when the sample is tested. Unfortunately, that assumption is faulty.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/...2_1/radio99.htm

[HuntingAnywhere]

Jindy, i could not agree more with you. But i believe the same logic you are using can apply for other scientific research. It is absurd to calculate the age of any artifact through science and give an exact estimate. For example, it is hard to believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old when there is no collective evidence. Same applies for fossils and other pre-historic artifacts that has been given an estimate. To look at something and estimate how old it is, is as a wild guess as how the universe was created.

Now, Science is not all obsolete. But i do believe many of its great ideas are just theories, models, hypothesis. And its rapid growth is due to the fact that people have created their own ideas and have strongly tried to find a way to make it fit in the realm of reality. The big bang, evolution, and the classification of extinct animals are interesting theories, but only fall under the category of an idea with no conclusive proof.

I could not agree more that the said article is just as phony as global warming, evolution, creationism but it is an idea created by man for man. i can create an idea like scientology or catholicism and find fallcious proof to back it up. that is the beuaty of any idea, it can be supported to matter how absurd it is.

This article only brings to light the notion that maybe that not everything we are told to believe, taugh in school is accurate.

Science is the new religion. Before there was religion, there was god. and the evil conscious of man found a way to exploit society through religion. Then came science to exploit the religious people.

[Glass eye]

Quote from a non-christian website.
New or Old?
Some examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago.

A petrified miner’s hat and wooden fence posts were unearthed from an abandoned 19th century gold hunter’s town in Australia’s outback. Results from radiocarbon dating said that they were 6000 years old.
http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/R...bonDating.html

[Glass eye]

And from the horse&#39;s mouth, however white-washed and played down they still admit it&#39;s flawed.


In the 1950s, further measurements on Mediterranean samples, in particular those from Egypt whose age was known through other means, pointed to radiocarbon dates which were younger than expected. The debate regarding this is outlined extensively in Renfrew (1972). Briefly, opinion was divided between those who thought the radiocarbon dates were correct (ie, that radiocarbon years equated more or less to solar or calendar years) and those who felt they were flawed and the historical data was more accurate. In the late 1950&#39;s and early 1960&#39;s, researchers measuring the radioactivity of known age tree rings found fluctuations in C14 concentration up to a maximum of ±5% over the last 1500 years. In addition to long term fluctuations, smaller &#39;wiggles&#39; were identified by the Dutch scholar Hessel de Vries (1958). This suggested there were temporal fluctuations in C14 concentration which would neccessitate the calibration of radiocarbon dates to other historically aged material. Radiocarbon dates of sequential dendrochronologically aged trees primarily of US bristlecone pine and German and Irish oak have been measured over the past 10 years to produce a calendrical / radiocarbon calibration curve which now extends back over 10 000 years (more on Calibration). This enables radiocarbon dates to be calibrated to solar or calendar dates.


http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

[Common Sense]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jindydiver @ Jul 8 2008, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Do any of you guys really believe that their is a conspiracy amongst the many many thousands of scientists around the globe researching the earth sciences to promote a particular view? It is absurd[/b]

It may be absurd; but more than one feller on this site believes that thousands of scientists around the globe are making up a global warming fable.

[jindydiver]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Common Sense @ Jul 8 2008, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jindydiver @ Jul 8 2008, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do any of you guys really believe that their is a conspiracy amongst the many many thousands of scientists around the globe researching the earth sciences to promote a particular view? It is absurd[/b]

It may be absurd; but more than one feller on this site believes that thousands of scientists around the globe are making up a global warming fable.
[/b][/quote]

While it might be said that there are doubts about the claims that human endeavor is a major cause of the global warming phenomenon, there is no doubt at all that our globe is warming and climate change is very real. Hunting in various locations across Australia I have seen it first hand how over the last 20 years rainfall has dropped and temperatures have gone up.

There are of course plenty of people here who like to blow raspberries at the climate change scientists, but there are very few people in this country who can just turn on a sprinkler and not wonder where the water is coming from

The debate here is maturing from the simple "who or what causes climate change" to "it is happening, now how do we deal with it?". We are already the most urbanised Western country on earth and it will get worse as we see whole rural industries shut down and their workers move to either mining (if they are lucky) or (if they aren&#39;t so lucky) whatever damn job they can find in the cities.

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jindydiver @ Jul 8 2008, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Do any of you guys really believe that their is a conspiracy amongst the many many thousands of scientists around the globe researching the earth sciences to promote a particular view? It is absurd[/b]

Anyone who buys into these dating methods, well, it&#39;s like investing in Enron AFTER the real numbers were exposed.
Believe what you want.

[Hubertus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Glass eye @ Jul 8 2008, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

It&#39;s a "fact" potassium-argon dating and C14 dating are scientific proof and don&#39;t lie.


The age of moon rocks reported in the press is not as clear cut as it appears. Dates acceptable to preconceived theory have been generally published. Much less is said about unacceptable dates found by means of potassium-argon dating, all the way from 7 to 20 billion years in age. Rather than question the method and the assumptions underlying the method, the bad samples are regarded as &#39;contaminated.&#39; A geophysical research journal reported that lava which formed in the year 1800-1801 was tested by the potassium-argon dating method and showed an age of 160 million up to 3 billion years in age. Other reports have been published of similar dates for young rocks in Norway, Germany, France, and the Soviet Union (Journal of Geophysical Research , July, 1968; CRSQ, 1970, 7:3, p.145; Time , 10/3/1969, p.72-74).



http://www.rae.org/ch04tud.html[/b]

Interesting that the most recent Reference Cited is 1972. So much for using up to date information.

[Hubertus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Glass eye @ Jul 8 2008, 09:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Problems with C14 dating

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/R...bonDating.html[/b]

And that&#39;s the beauty of science. Science is fluid, it is not static. As new data is discovered, as research methods are refined, as assumptions are shown unreliable, hypothesis change.

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hubertus @ Jul 10 2008, 01:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Interesting that the most recent Reference Cited is 1972. So much for using up to date information.[/b]

And still they publish as "facts" out of date information in text books.

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hubertus @ Jul 10 2008, 01:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Glass eye @ Jul 8 2008, 09:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Problems with C14 dating

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/R...bonDating.html[/b]

And that&#39;s the beauty of science. Science is fluid, it is not static. As new data is discovered, as research methods are refined, as assumptions are shown unreliable, hypothesis change.
[/b][/quote]
And that&#39;s the problem with evolutionary scientist. They make headlines when something is "discovered" to be millions or billions of years old. But they don&#39;t make public their errors and they allow the old records to remain as "fact".

[chuam]

As opposed to taking a book written by men who had no idea of the workings of the natural world? If a science is found to be wrong it is tested and retested. Science is fluid as opposed to your view which is not. The bible is not fluid and cannot be tested. So your attempt at pointing out the fallacy of science makes your argument that the bible is correct look even more foolish.

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chuam @ Jul 10 2008, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

As opposed to taking a book written by men who had no idea of the workings of the natural world? If a science is found to be wrong it is tested and retested. Science is fluid as opposed to your view which is not. The bible is not fluid and cannot be tested. So your attempt at pointing out the fallacy of science makes your argument that the bible is correct look even more foolish.[/b]

Chuam, you calling me foolish rolls off me like water off of a duck&#39;s back.
The fool says in his heart " there is no God"

[chuam]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Glass eye @ Jul 10 2008, 08:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chuam @ Jul 10 2008, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As opposed to taking a book written by men who had no idea of the workings of the natural world? If a science is found to be wrong it is tested and retested. Science is fluid as opposed to your view which is not. The bible is not fluid and cannot be tested. So your attempt at pointing out the fallacy of science makes your argument that the bible is correct look even more foolish.[/b]

Chuam, you calling me foolish rolls off me like water off of a duck&#39;s back.
The fool says in his heart " there is no God"
[/b][/quote]

Way to skirt the debate completely................

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chuam @ Jul 10 2008, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

As opposed to taking a book written by men who had no idea of the workings of the natural world?[/b]

Amos 9:6
He that calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out upon the face of the earth: Jehova is his name.

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; unto the place from where the rivers come, there they return again.

When did scientist discover the hydrologic system ?
I think Amos and Solomon explained it pretty good for having "no idea of the workings of the natural world"

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chuam @ Jul 10 2008, 08:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Way to skirt the debate completely................[/b]

As you can see in the post above I&#39;m not skirting YOUR debate, I could post many examples of natural science in the Bible that wasn&#39;t known to scientist until much, much later. However, you will not listen and so I won&#39;t get into all of them.

[chuam]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Glass eye @ Jul 10 2008, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chuam @ Jul 10 2008, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As opposed to taking a book written by men who had no idea of the workings of the natural world?[/b]

Amos 9:6
He that calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out upon the face of the earth: Jehova is his name.

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; unto the place from where the rivers come, there they return again.

When did scientist discover the hydrologic system ?
I think Amos and Solomon explained it pretty good for having "no idea of the workings of the natural world"
[/b][/quote]

Pretty far from explaining the system of water movement and the rain cycle. I highly doubt they knew about evaporation, condensation and the factors for precipitation. I can take my 2 year old down to a river and then show her where it flows into the sea and she&#39;ll understand that rivers flow to the ocean. She would have no grasp of the other concepts of how the rain cycle actually works.

BTW, people around that time also though the earth was flat. Christians put Galileo on house arrest and labeled him a heretic because they believed the Sun revolved around the earth.........

Is the earth still flat and does the sun revolve around the earth???

If you can answer those questions thank a scientist not a priest.............