Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby Peter Henderson » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:49 pm

Since Marc has refused to answer my question "what is his dating method to determine a 6,000 year old Earth", you may like to have a look at his talk "Evidence for a young Earth":

http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/33

Lots of repeating YEC claims ranging from population growth, decay of short and long period comets and denial of the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt, through to dinosaurs on Bishop Bell's tomb in Carlisle. Quite a bit on radiometric dating being unreliable as well.

Enjoy.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby cathy » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:33 pm

Aargh I have only watched the first few minutes, the biology bit. I think he's calculated population growth using compound interest calculations :? Oldest childs A level biology used more sophisticated methods than that! And the other evidence is a lack of dead bodies and graveyards and the being able to see a solar eclipse :? .

Maybe it'll get better later on, but I've got to see new spiderman in 3D instead :( :( so will have to watch the rest later. Tho have just fast forwarded a bit to find out that Marc is saying the last dinosaurs were around in the 1500s :shock: St George may have wiped out the last one :lol: :lol:

Need some reallity, Spiderman here I come. It might make it easier to deal with Marcs talk later.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:38 pm

cathy wrote:Tho have just fast forwarded a bit to find out that Marc is saying the last dinosaurs were around in the 1500s :shock: St George may have wiped out the last one :lol: :lol:
Straight pinch from Ken Ham's 2007 drivel that I posted in News & Links a few days ago. Though Ham attributed the killing to an Italian rather than an English/Turkish saint. Still, we've joined Italy in the EU now and Turkey wants to join, so perhaps it's as broad as it's long from an Antipodean viewpoint. :)
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby Peter Henderson » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:50 pm

Tho have just fast forwarded a bit to find out that Marc is saying the last dinosaurs were around in the 1500s St George may have wiped out the last one


and he managed to say it all with a straight face.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:28 am

I've listened.

I'd like to bet that none of the pieces of 'evidences suggesting a 6,000 year old Earth' - eg on past populations, comets, the Sun, salt in the sea, helium, old cities, dragons and dinosaurs, radiometric dating assumptions, the great unconformity, carbon 14, 'excess' helium in zircons - comes from peer-reviewed science papers. Or - if it has - the papers in question are well out-of-date. Nothing there about dating methods supporting 6,000 years - other than the dubious Humphreys RATE claims regarding 'too much helium'.

He suggested that most radiometric dating methods are bound to give dates of millions/billions of years because the half-lives are very lengthy. But haven't some of the methods been used successfully to date igneous rocks known to be only hundreds or thousands of years' old? Does anybody know? Also, given the number of atoms found in some samples thus meaning that a tiny proportion should have decayed on average, I'm not convinced that a very long half-life would preclude the possibility of successful dating ie decay since closure temperature could be detected even if less than one half-life had really elapsed and the sample was really millions/billions of years' old? Can anyone else confirm whether this is the case (I don't think Dawkins addressed this in 'The Greatest Show on Earth' chapter 4; he did mention that there are some very very short half-lives - which of course are pretty useless in dating radiometrically something millions of years' old)? Dawkins did also mention the point, which Sarfati tried to dismiss in his 'refutation', that "Isotopes whose half-life is less than a tenth or so of the age of the Earth are, for practical purposes, extinct and don't exist except under special circumstances".

I got the impression that Marc had a cold at the time of this talk. Presumably the common cold virus - and all other harmful viruses - only started behaving badly (or got 'lucky') after the Fall. Or maybe humans were initially created with perfect health?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby marcsurtees » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:40 am

Peter Henderson wrote:Since Marc has refused to answer my question "what is his dating method to determine a 6,000 year old Earth", you may like to have a look at his talk "Evidence for a young Earth":

http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/33

Lots of repeating YEC claims ranging from population growth, decay of short and long period comets and denial of the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt, through to dinosaurs on Bishop Bell's tomb in Carlisle. Quite a bit on radiometric dating being unreliable as well.

Please note that I do not deny the existence of the Kuiper belt (which has been observed)
However, the Oort cloud has not been observed, it is infered.
Last edited by marcsurtees on Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby marcsurtees » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:52 am

cathy wrote:Aargh I have only watched the first few minutes, the biology bit. I think he's calculated population growth using compound interest calculations

You should note that this was presented as an approximation to give an estimate of how long it might take to reach 6 billion starting with 2 people. Since then, when I present this evidence I have emphasised that point to avoid this criticism (which by the way, misses the point).
Yes of course there is more to it than that. But the whole point was to show that it is possible to reach the current population in a few thousand years. And then I followed it with the question about how there were so few remains if the "stone age" lasted 100,000 years.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby Michael » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:01 am

marcsurtees wrote:
cathy wrote:Aargh I have only watched the first few minutes, the biology bit. I think he's calculated population growth using compound interest calculations

You should note that this was presented as an approximation to give an estimate of how long it might take to reach 6 billion starting with 2 people. Since then, when I present this evidence I have emphasised that point to avoid this criticism (which by the way, misses the point).
Yes of course there is more to it than that. But the whole point was to show that it is possible to reach the current population in a few thousand years. And then I followed it with the question about how there were so few remains if the "stone age" lasted 100,000 years.



No answer Marc to your silly arguments. How can someone with a PhD come out with such drivel? It's been shown to be such hundreds of times
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby cathy » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:13 am

No answer Marc to your silly arguments. How can someone with a PhD come out with such drivel? It's been shown to be such hundreds of times

Because creationism is dangerous. Marc is the evidence of that, he isn't stupid but he's allowed his critically faculties to be mashed by creationism. And that talk is a perfect illustration for why children need to be protected from it.

Marc why have you never answered my question as to why you're a creationist Christian rather than a normal one? Michael has a brain the size of a planet and understands the relevant science and theology inside out. Why do you listen to creationist loons who sound just wrong and stupid beyond belief to the rest of us rather than someone logical and reasoned?

I don't understand! Do you really not understand that you are completely wrong. Do you really not comprehend what people see when creationists start? Do you really think you're just expressing a different opinion rather than denying reality? Can you really not see how daft the whole thing is.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:31 am

marcsurtees wrote:
cathy wrote:Aargh I have only watched the first few minutes, the biology bit. I think he's calculated population growth using compound interest calculations

You should note that this was presented as an approximation to give an estimate of how long it might take to reach 6 billion starting with 2 people. Since then, when I present this evidence I have emphasised that point to avoid this criticism (which by the way, misses the point).
Yes of course there is more to it than that. But the whole point was to show that it is possible to reach the current population in a few thousand years. And then I followed it with the question about how there were so few remains if the "stone age" lasted 100,000 years.


Food supply.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby marcsurtees » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:30 am

Michael wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:You should note that this was presented as an approximation to give an estimate of how long it might take to reach 6 billion starting with 2 people.
No answer Marc to your silly arguments. How can someone with a PhD come out with such drivel? It's been shown to be such hundreds of times

Perhaps you could enlighten us to the correct way to estimate how long it might take to reach a population of 6 billion starting with 2 people?
Note that I applied a very low growth rate to allow for disease and war.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:30 am

Please note that do not deny the existence of the Kuiper belt (which has been observed)


Well, that's one half of the disintegrating comet nonsense dispelled i.e. the proposed reservoir for short period comets has been found.

However, the Oort cloud has not been observed, it is infered


Well, electrons, or a thermometer reading absolute zero have never been "observed " Marc so what's your point ?

On the other hand, Oort clouds have been "observed" around other stars.

I'm surpised the YECs are still using this one and that it hasn't been consigned to "arguments we think creationists should not use".
Last edited by Peter Henderson on Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby Moon Fire » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:31 am

I'm watching this......at the biology/dead bodies thing....this is the age old creationist cannard of 'pulling the numbers from their arse'.
Moon Fire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:34 am

marcsurtees wrote:
Michael wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:You should note that this was presented as an approximation to give an estimate of how long it might take to reach 6 billion starting with 2 people.
No answer Marc to your silly arguments. How can someone with a PhD come out with such drivel? It's been shown to be such hundreds of times

Perhaps you could enlighten us to the correct way to estimate how long it might take to reach a population of 6 billion starting with 2 people?
Note that I applied a very low growth rate to allow for disease and war.


In actual fact Marc it's 8 people, and not two.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Evidence for a young Earth: Marc's dating methods

Postby marcsurtees » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:42 am

a_haworthroberts wrote: Nothing there about dating methods supporting 6,000 years - other than the dubious Humphreys RATE claims regarding 'too much helium'.


Add to that the new evidence from argon that Humpheys has recently published (Sorry can't find a link just now and I have other stuff which I need to do... like earn my salary!).
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Next

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron