Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

[Sparhafoc]

And LEROY is still playing the Russian Doll game where he drags over discussion from a thread where his arguments were roundly spanked, and drops them into yet another topic where he equivocates, bullshits, and blags endlessly.

Obviously I am being a hypocrite.

If we use the same reasoning that you are using to dismiss the KCA, one can easily dismiss radiometric dating.

What is a universe, LEROY?

What characterizes a universe as distinct from any postulated things without the universe, LEROY.

Again LEROY shows that he's not stupid, just morally repugnant.

In the thread he's cross-threading from because he got his ass spanked and needed to continually drag this topic over to other threads where he feels he can lie about the preceding discussion, it was made unarguably clear to him that any definition of universe as a discrete thing must acknowledge a particular set of forces. Those forces are the fabric of our universe, and everything in the universe results from those forces.

As such, any claim that the same set of forces operates outside of this universe is a claim that either needs support or is not acceptable to anyone honestly looking for truth.

That's LEROY's actual claim - he claims to know what is outside the universe, but of course, all he can offer when pressed on this is bluster and bullshit.

So LEROY's latest equivocation tries to liken an argument that things inside the universe are unlike things inside the universe as if it were parallel to an argument that things inside the universe are not like things outside the universe.

Again, the only remaining question is who he thinks he's going to fool.

 

[leroy]

why, you are the one who is making the positive assertion, I am asserting "C" you are the one who has to show that isotopes decayed at the same rate 200 years ago

Stop lying LEROY.

I just cited the factual evidence that it is YOU who made the claim, not me.

Stop fucking lying to my face.

Why si this so hart to understand SPARHAFOC?

A I am not saying that decay rates where different 200 years ago

B I am not saying that decay rates where the same 200 years ago.

I am simply saying C SPARHAFOC


you are the one who is affirming B, you are the one who has to provide evidence

 

[Sparhafoc]

Why si this so hart to understand SPARHAFOC?

A I am not saying that decay rates where different 200 years ago

B I am not saying that decay rates where the same 200 years ago.

I am simply saying C SPARHAFOC

Yes, I provided evidence in the form of explanations by scientific institutes which you completely ignored.

You can't claim C in the way I claimed C, LEROY, so stop bullshitting for fuck's sakes.

My claim of C was expressly based on the fact that CAN BE NO EVIDENCE.

Whereas, there IS evidence for radiometric dating as per the fucking scientific articles you ignored.

you are the one who is affirming B, you are the one who has to provide evidence

And report time.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This is what really happened outside of LEROY's manufactured bullshit:

For clarity - If I acted the same way as you, there'd be 2000 posts where I complain about the format of your reply, or pick a word you used and wibble about it, or demand you perform some task for me ('prove you know what radiometric dating is before I have a discussion with you') etc. etc. etc. as you always do.

Instead, what I did was provide 3 independent sources immediately and show that radiometric dating is reliable and useful.

Now you will go back to the same old LEROY style where you refuse to engage and just wibble endlessly on in the hope of distracting from your incompetence.

yes 3 independent sources full of logical fallacies and ungranted assertions.

you don't know everything SPARHAFOC, nobody (including you) understands why some atoms decay and other seemingly identical atoms don't. for example if you have 2,000,000,000 C14 atoms 1,000,000,000 of these atoms will decay in 5730 years, but nobody knows which specific atoms will decay, because nobody understand this mechanism at a fundamental level, therefore SPARHAFOC you should suspend taking a position and stop pretending that you know things that you don't SPARHAFOC



you are asserting that the decay rate has always been constant without any justification SPARHAFOC just because the rate is constant today, that in no way proves that it has always been that way.

besides we know that some known mechanisms would accelerate the decay rate producing young rocks with apparent old age.

c) suspend taking a position until taking a position becomes credible

this is the most reasonable position until we get to a point where we understand quantum mechanics and understand how should we interpret the seemingly randomness of the decay of particles. until then suspend taking a position is the most rational thing to do.

When someone keeps lying about what other people have said, it genetically undermines any valid discussion occurring, and this is meant to be a discussion board.

 

[Sparhafoc]

As a side note, look how I actually cited empirical evidence for my position (as in the position I took, not the one LEROY took for me) - compare this to LEROY's bullshit on the KCA thread where he spent 20 pages trying to disqualify my post on manufactured technical grounds, because LEROY said so.

And look how much LEROY respects evidence - 3 papers from legitimate and credible scientific sources corroborating the reliability of radiometric dating, and LEROY's only response to them is...

yes 3 independent sources full of logical fallacies and ungranted assertions.

Those logical fallacies and ungranted assertions that LEROY identified and showed were in error?

No, of course not - handwave and gone, LEROY pretends they don't exist anymore.

In reality, I leapt at the chance to shoulder my burden of proof, LEROY has never once even accepted the requirement to establish a claim by independent evidence.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Again, here's the reality, rather than LEROY's manufactured bullshit - it's perplexing that even after having seen me go back and find the post he's lying about and cite it again, that he hasn't yet grasped that I am more than prepared to do this!

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181543#p181543
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181544#p181544
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181545#p181545

It is credible, it is verified via millions of experiments.

The National Center for Science Education has addressed this fatuous Creationist canard because it is mendacious to a fault:

https://ncse.com/library-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work

Dating of The Mt Vesuvius Eruption

In the early afternoon of August 24, 79 CE, Mt Vesuvius erupted violently, sending hot ash flows speeding down its flanks. These flows buried and destroyed Pompeii and other nearby Roman cities. We know the exact day of this eruption because Pliny the Younger carefully recorded the event. In 1997 a team of scientists from the Berkeley Geochronology Center and the University of Naples decided to see if the40Ar/39Ar method of radiometric dating could accurately measure the age of this very young (by geological standards) volcanic material. They separated sanidine crystals from a sample of one of the ash flows. Incremental heating experiments on 12 samples of sanidine yielded 46 data points that resulted in an isochron age of 1925 94 years. The actual age of the flow in 1997 was 1918 years. Is this just a coincidence? No — it is the result of extremely careful analyses using a technique that works.

This is not the only dating study to be done on an historic lava flow. Two extensive studies done more than 25 years ago involved analyzing the isotopic composition of argon in such flows to determine if the source of the argon was atmospheric, as must be assumed in K-Ar dating (Dalrymple 1969, 26 flows; Krummenacher 1970, 19 flows). Both studies detected, in a few of the flows, deviations from atmospheric isotopic composition, most often in the form of excess 40Ar. The majority of flows, however, had no detectable excess 40Ar and thus gave correct ages as expected. Of the handful of flows that did contain excess 40Ar, only a few did so in significant amounts. The 122 BCE flow from Mt Etna, for example, gave an erroneous age of 0.25 0.08 Ma. Note, however, that even an error of 0.25 Ma would be insignificant in a 20 Ma flow with equivalent potassium content. Austin (1996) has documented excess 40Ar in the 1986 dacite flow from Mount St Helens, but the amounts are insufficient to produce significant errors in all but the youngest rocks.

The 79 CE Mt Vesuvius flow, the dating of which is described above, also contained excess 40Ar. The40Ar/39Ar isochron method used by the Berkeley scientists, however, does not require any assumptions about the composition of the argon trapped in the rock when it formed — it may be atmospheric or any other composition for that matter. Thus any potential error due to excess 40Ar was eliminated by the use of this technique, which was not available when the studies by Dalrymple (1969) and Krummenacher (1970) were done.

Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks. The 40Ar/39Ar technique, which is now used instead of K-Ar methods for most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40Ar, should it be present.

US Geological Service:

https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

The Age of the Earth
How do we know the Age of the Earth?
Radiometric dating
Adapted from The Age of the Earth , by the Branch of Isotope Geology, United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California
How do we know the Age of the Earth?

The Earth is a constantly changing planet. Its crust is continually being created, modified, and destroyed. As a result, rocks that record its earliest history have not been found and probably no longer exist. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that the Earth and the other bodies of the Solar System are 4.5-4.6 billion years old, and that the Milky Way Galaxy and the Universe are older still. The principal evidence for the antiquity of Earth and its cosmic surroundings is:

The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia.

The oldest Moon rocks are from the lunar highlands and were formed when the early lunar crust was partially or entirely molten. These rocks, of which only a few were returned by the Apollo missions, have been dated by two methods at between 4.4-4.5 billion years in age.
The majority of the 70 well-dated meteorites have ages of 4.4-4.6 billion years. These meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids and represent some of the most primitive material in the solar system, have been dated by 5 independent radiometric dating methods.
The "best" age for the Earth is based on the time required for the lead isotopes in four very old lead ores (galena) to have evolved from the composition of lead at the time the Solar System formed, as recorded in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. This "model lead age" is 4.54 billion years.
The evidence for the antiquity of the Earth and Solar System is consistent with evidence for an even greater age for the Universe and Milky Way Galaxy. a) The age of the Universe can be estimated from the velocity and distance of galaxies as the universe expands. The estimates range from 7 to 20 billion years, depending on whether the expansion is constant or is slowing due to gravitational attraction. b) The age of the Galaxy is estimated to be 14-18 billion years from the rate of evolution of stars in globular clusters, which are thought to be the oldest stars in the Galaxy. The age of the elements in the Galaxy, based on the production ratios of osmium isotopes in supernovae and the change in that ratio over time due to radioactive decay, is 8.6-15.7 billion years. Theoretical considerations indicate that the Galaxy formed within a billion years of the beginning of the Universe. c) Combining the data from a) and b), the "best, i.e., most consistent, age of the universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years. For more current information on the age of the universe, visit NASA's Planck Mission studies.

Radiometric dating

Spontaneous breakdown or decay of atomic nuclei, termed radioactive decay, is the basis for all radiometric dating methods. Radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by French physicist Henri Becquerel. By 1907 study of the decay products of uranium (lead and intermediate radioactive elements that decay to lead) demonstrated to B. B. Boltwood that the lead/uranium ratio in uranium minerals increased with geologic age and might provide a geological dating tool.

As radioactive Parent atoms decay to stable daughter atoms (as uranium decays to lead) each disintegration results in one more atom of the daughter than was initially present and one less atom of the parent. The probability of a parent atom decaying in a fixed period of time is always the same for all atoms of that type regardless of temperature, pressure, or chemical conditions. This probability of decay is the decay constant. The time required for one-half of any original number of parent atoms to decay is the half-life, which is related to the decay constant by a simple mathematical formula.

All rocks and minerals contain long-lived radioactive elements that were incorporated into Earth when the Solar System formed. These radioactive elements constitute independent clocks that allow geologists to determine the age of the rocks in which they occur. The radioactive parent elements used to date rocks and minerals are:

...

Radiometric dating using the naturally-occurring radioactive elements is simple in concept even though technically complex. If we know the number of radioactive parent atoms present when a rock formed and the number present now, we can calculate the age of the rock using the decay constant. The number of parent atoms originally present is simply the number present now plus the number of daughter atoms formed by the decay, both of which are quantities that can be measured. Samples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are altered, contaminated, or disturbed by later heating or chemical events.

In addition to the ages of Earth, Moon, and meteorites, radiometric dating has been used to determine ages of fossils, including early man, timing of glaciations, ages of mineral deposits, recurrence rates of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the history of reversals of Earth's magnetic field, and the age and duration of a wide variety of other geological events and processes.

Christians do not need to deny reality to remain Christian.

This is what marks Creationist fundamentalists as being functionally distinct from other Christian groups:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/evid.anc.earth.pdf

EVIDENCE FOR AN ANCIENT EARTH
Radiometric Dating
-
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. First edition 1994; revised version 2002.
Radiometric dating -- the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements -- has been in widespread use for over half a century.
There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible - believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community

Best get to work, LEROY. I've supported the position I took.

Show where these supposed logical fallacies and ungranted assumptions are which represent your blanket dismissal of evidence.


Also to note, as anyone with even a shred of honesty can see, my argument (in response to LEROY's original claim) is that radiometric dating is reliable.

 

[leroy]

So LEROY's latest equivocation tries to liken an argument that things inside the universe are unlike things inside the universe as if it were parallel to an argument that things inside the universe are not like things outside the universe.

same equivocation on your side, you are assuming that mechanism that took place this century also took place in the 19th century.

 

[Sparhafoc]

So LEROY's latest equivocation tries to liken an argument that things inside the universe are unlike things inside the universe as if it were parallel to an argument that things inside the universe are not like things outside the universe.

same equivocation on your side, you are assuming that mechanism that took place this century also took place in the 19th century.

Nope, that's still your equivocation.

Again LEROY shows that he's not stupid, just morally repugnant.

In the thread he's cross-threading from because he got his ass spanked and needed to continually drag this topic over to other threads where he feels he can lie about the preceding discussion, it was made unarguably clear to him that any definition of universe as a discrete thing must acknowledge a particular set of forces. Those forces are the fabric of our universe, and everything in the universe results from those forces.

As such, any claim that the same set of forces operates outside of this universe is a claim that either needs support or is not acceptable to anyone honestly looking for truth.

That's LEROY's actual claim - he claims to know what is outside the universe, but of course, all he can offer when pressed on this is bluster and bullshit.

So LEROY's latest equivocation tries to liken an argument that things inside the universe are unlike things inside the universe as if it were parallel to an argument that things inside the universe are not like things outside the universe.

Again, the only remaining question is who he thinks he's going to fool.

 

[leroy]

Best get to work, LEROY. I've supported the position I took.

Show where these supposed logical fallacies and ungranted assumptions are which represent your blanket dismissal of evidence.


Also to note, as anyone with even a shred of honesty can see, my argument (in response to LEROY's original claim) is that radiometric dating is reliable.

sure logical fallacies

Fallacy of generalization, you are assuming that things that we observe today where there 200 years ago

Fallacy of composition< just because the rocks are "old" that doesn't mean that the planet is also Old.

Ungranted assumption, decay rates have always been constant.

 

[Sparhafoc]

sure logical fallacies

Fallacy of generalization, you are assuming that things that we observe today where there 200 years ago

Fallacy of composition< just because the rocks are "old" that doesn't mean that the planet is also Old.

Ungranted assumption, decay rates have always been constant.

Oh look, LEROY!

You must have made a perfectly honest mistake.

Why?

Because when you first wrote this contention, you said...

yes 3 independent sources full of logical fallacies and ungranted assertions.

So you claimed that the sources were full of logical fallacies and ungranted assumptions.

Now, as a perfectly honest individual who has an honest disagreement they want to express honestly to their fellows....

Show where these supposed logical fallacies and ungranted assumptions are which represent your blanket dismissal of evidence.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Obviously I am being a hypocrite.

If we use the same reasoning that you are using to dismiss the KCA, one can easily dismiss radiometric dating.

Leroy still fails at reading comprehension...

That wasn't it. Leroy is now saying that he doesn't accept the validity of radiometric dating because he now rejects "Leroy's inductive logic". So we're just asking "Is Leroy rejecting "Leroy's inductive logic" when it comes to the KCA or is he being an hypocrit"?

We're talking about Leroy's reasoning, not ours because I am sure I am not the only one who would feel insulted if we were told we're using "Leroy's inductive logic".

 

[Sparhafoc]

And while you're honestly engaging in completely honest behavior as any honest person would honestly do....

you are asserting that the decay rate has always been constant without any justification SPARHAFOC just because the rate is constant today, that in no way proves that it has always been that way.

Cite where I said this, or retract.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

sure logical fallacies

Fallacy of generalization, you are assuming that things that we observe today where there 200 years ago

Fallacy of composition< just because the rocks are "old" that doesn't mean that the planet is also Old.

Ungranted assumption, decay rates have always been constant.

Oh look, LEROY!

You must have made a perfectly honest mistake.

Why?

Because when you first wrote this contention, you said...

yes 3 independent sources full of logical fallacies and ungranted assertions.

So you claimed that the sources were full of logical fallacies and ungranted assumptions.

Now, as a perfectly honest individual who has an honest disagreement they want to express honestly to their fellows....

Show where these supposed logical fallacies and ungranted assumptions are which represent your blanket dismissal of evidence.

Seems obvious to me that dandan/leroy did not read the sources. How pathetic.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Given LEROY's protestations about not being a liar, you'd think he'd LEAP to correct his error above.

But apparently not.

 

[leroy]

Cite where I said this, or retract.

ok you never said that (your sources did)


so I guess I can simple ask you, Do you assert that decay rates are constant and have been constant in the past?

 

[leroy]

[Seems obvious to me that dandan/leroy did not read the sources. How pathetic.

Of course I did not read the sources, I am taking the skeptic position, I don't have to read any sources al I have to so is read the titles, assume the content and proclaim logical fallacies and lies in the sources.

 

[leroy]

My claim of C was expressly based on the fact that CAN BE NO EVIDENCE.

My claim C is also based on the fact that CAN BE NO EVIDENCE

Whereas, there IS evidence for radiometric dating as per the fucking scientific articles you ignored.

sources full of lies and fallacies

 

[Deleted member 619]

Of course I did not read the sources, I am taking the skeptic position, I don't have to read any sources al I have to so is read the titles, assume the content and proclaim logical fallacies and lies in the sources.

I think I'll just leave this here.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Cite where I said this, or retract.

ok you never said that (your sources did)

Thank you for finally acknowledging that I did not say what you said I did.

Now can you show where the sources said it, please?

so I guess I can simple ask you, Do you assert that decay rates are constant and have been constant in the past?

At present, no I don't.

This is because I am obliged only to support a contention I make - not one you want me to make, whereas you are obliged to support any contention you make, and it very much appears that you are trying to evade supporting your contention.

I will happily take an affirmative position when I choose to, and my affirmative will be phrased exactly how I want to phrase it. However, it will be very happy to support my contention at that time.

First though, what is your evidence that decay rates have changed over time.

 

[Sparhafoc]

[Seems obvious to me that dandan/leroy did not read the sources. How pathetic.

Of course I did not read the sources, I am taking the skeptic position, I don't have to read any sources al I have to so is read the titles, assume the content and proclaim logical fallacies and lies in the sources.

Firstly, there's no such thing as 'the skeptic position' as we already pointed out to you. It's a name you've made up - just as you made up 'eternal skepticism' before, and it doesn't mean anything to anyone else. You are using it as a way of evading substantiating your position.

Secondly, if one is skeptical of a claim, one looks into that claim. Skepticism is not equivalent to blanket dismissal.

Thirdly, if you refuse to read sources, then it shows you are unwilling to engage in honest discussion, and all anyone needs to say to you is 'well, if you read the sources, you'd see why you are wrong'. Providing independent sources for your claims are what makes for robust discussion of a topic. Refusal to employ independent sources, or to evaluate them means that whatever you are doing, it's not honest discourse.

Finally, it's a bullshit red herring. Cite where I or anyone else here has ever refused to read a source, except in response to your refusal to read a source.