Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

ruiner · Feb 10, 2004, 09:49 pm

I am only interested in the scientific verdict. Science does not deal in truths, only models that fit observation.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
certainly not, the rapid decay theory only conforms to prior belief that the earth is <10,000 years old. It is not supported by any other evidence and its entire premise is faulty as it cannot explain past magnetic reversals. Simply saying they were caused by a flood is not an explaination. There has to be a mechanism for how floods can cause such a thing.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Most dating techniques have upper limits of less than 4.5 billion years and cannot be expected to agree. But a number of dating techniques with higher limits do agree on this date.

On the otherhand the vast majority of dating techniques show the Earth to be far older than the 10,000 years proposed by this magnetic decay theory.

-Ice cores show the earth to be 100,000+ years old
-the lack of naturally occuring isotopes with short halflives is only explainable given enough time for them to have decayed.
-Nearly all radio-dating techniques show the earth to be older than 10,000 years. This includes carbon14 dating which has a relatively short halflife
-the geological column itself is ample evidence of an old earth

But I stick with radio-dating as the main evidence for an old earth

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
That is not definitive in the slightest. There are to many guesses that can be incorrect which scientists make to find the age of something with dating methods. There are MANY large discrepancies of the dating methods scientists use.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
There can be discrepancies but scientists know what is safe to date and what is not safe to date. Dating sealife by carbondating their shells is a no-no. But dating land animal remains by carbondating their bones is reliable.

Even so, in general, overall, radio-dating techniques are reliable. When multiple radiodating techniques collaborate on a given date, there is very little room to argue without claiming all the dating methods were wrong but just happened to come to the same conclusion by chance.
Appealing to known occasions where radiodating can be innaccurate does not wave away the majority of cases where there is absolutely no reason to assume they are innacurate, certainly not by 10,000s of magnititude.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You put a stigma on Christians to make them look like the most biased of people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Certainly not. My comments were aimed at creationists only and not all of them. Perhaps i should have made that more clear.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
How do you measure biasness?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
biasometers !

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Dr. Jay L. Wile is commiting a fallacy in his argument by claiming that because the dynamo theory is not bullet-proof, the earth is young.
This is not a "my theory or yours" situation, both can be wrong and regardless of the shortfalls of the dynamo theory, the rapid decay theory is far worse because one of its consequences is a young earth, which disagrees with tons of evidence and possibly common sense.

What fallacy? He didn’t say that in that quote.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The fallacy was of false dilema, he igored the possibility that both reversal theory and decay theory could be wrong. He set up a "one or the other" situation by implying that because reversal theory had problems this somehow strengthened decay theory. But like you said it doesn't really matter to the issue.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I am discussing the validity of the rapid decay theory and the dynamo theory.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Right, I couldn't care less what the dynamo theory is or how it bears out, like I said it is not a dilema between rapid decay and dynamo. Wile was promoting rapid decay and I can see it doesn't work in several areas. Theories have to be supported by observations, the more the better. In fact I would say both rapid decay and reversal should be hypothesis, but whatever. In the case of rapid decay theory it proposes an earth <10,000 years old but there are a number of major observations that contradict. For example the ice-cores, radio-dating, etc.
Also I don't know that there isn't one, but I noticed that Wile never explained how rapid decay theory actually explains magnetic reversals. I realise he mentioned catastrophies and especially a flood as being causes for magnetic pole reversal. But is there even a mechanism for a flood to be able to reverse the earths magnetic poles?

Feb 10, 2004, 09:49 pm	#224 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	I am only interested in the scientific verdict. Science does not deal in truths, only models that fit observation. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> certainly not, the rapid decay theory only conforms to prior belief that the earth is <10,000 years old. It is not supported by any other evidence and its entire premise is faulty as it cannot explain past magnetic reversals. Simply saying they were caused by a flood is not an explaination. There has to be a mechanism for how floods can cause such a thing. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Most dating techniques have upper limits of less than 4.5 billion years and cannot be expected to agree. But a number of dating techniques with higher limits do agree on this date. On the otherhand the vast majority of dating techniques show the Earth to be far older than the 10,000 years proposed by this magnetic decay theory. -Ice cores show the earth to be 100,000+ years old -the lack of naturally occuring isotopes with short halflives is only explainable given enough time for them to have decayed. -Nearly all radio-dating techniques show the earth to be older than 10,000 years. This includes carbon14 dating which has a relatively short halflife -the geological column itself is ample evidence of an old earth But I stick with radio-dating as the main evidence for an old earth </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by That is not definitive in the slightest. There are to many guesses that can be incorrect which scientists make to find the age of something with dating methods. There are MANY large discrepancies of the dating methods scientists use.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There can be discrepancies but scientists know what is safe to date and what is not safe to date. Dating sealife by carbondating their shells is a no-no. But dating land animal remains by carbondating their bones is reliable. Even so, in general, overall, radio-dating techniques are reliable. When multiple radiodating techniques collaborate on a given date, there is very little room to argue without claiming all the dating methods were wrong but just happened to come to the same conclusion by chance. Appealing to known occasions where radiodating can be innaccurate does not wave away the majority of cases where there is absolutely no reason to assume they are innacurate, certainly not by 10,000s of magnititude. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You put a stigma on Christians to make them look like the most biased of people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Certainly not. My comments were aimed at creationists only and not all of them. Perhaps i should have made that more clear. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by How do you measure biasness?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> biasometers ! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Dr. Jay L. Wile is commiting a fallacy in his argument by claiming that because the dynamo theory is not bullet-proof, the earth is young. This is not a "my theory or yours" situation, both can be wrong and regardless of the shortfalls of the dynamo theory, the rapid decay theory is far worse because one of its consequences is a young earth, which disagrees with tons of evidence and possibly common sense. What fallacy? He didn’t say that in that quote. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The fallacy was of false dilema, he igored the possibility that both reversal theory and decay theory could be wrong. He set up a "one or the other" situation by implying that because reversal theory had problems this somehow strengthened decay theory. But like you said it doesn't really matter to the issue. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I am discussing the validity of the rapid decay theory and the dynamo theory.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Right, I couldn't care less what the dynamo theory is or how it bears out, like I said it is not a dilema between rapid decay and dynamo. Wile was promoting rapid decay and I can see it doesn't work in several areas. Theories have to be supported by observations, the more the better. In fact I would say both rapid decay and reversal should be hypothesis, but whatever. In the case of rapid decay theory it proposes an earth <10,000 years old but there are a number of major observations that contradict. For example the ice-cores, radio-dating, etc. Also I don't know that there isn't one, but I noticed that Wile never explained how rapid decay theory actually explains magnetic reversals. I realise he mentioned catastrophies and especially a flood as being causes for magnetic pole reversal. But is there even a mechanism for a flood to be able to reverse the earths magnetic poles?