At 5/8/2012 5:15:16 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Who here has ever done that? is there a single person here who has claimed that radiometric dating of any kind can never be misused and misapplied to produce false results?
I'm simply referring to people who make blanket statements about rightness or wrongness, being condescending toward the poster of an article even though the basic arguments made within can still be applied to today in terms of dating being inconsistent doesn't prove anything and shows blind loyalty to one process without the ability to explain the problems away.
Again, who here is making blanket statements? Your second part of the post clearly states that you are addressing the mindless hecklers of this forums. But i have yet to see a single person who supports Evolution that has made a blanket "Radiometric dating is always correct, there are no limits or flaws, it is perfect" argument, ever.
Furthermore, again, the examples you brought, like the one about Mt Saint Helens, does not show that the radiometric dating is inconsistent.
Its like using a high school microscope to look at viruses. Of course the results would be innacurate, inconclusive, because you should be using an electron microscope as high school standard microscopes arent nearly as powerful. Does this mean that all microscopes are flawed? Of course not.
We have already explained the so called "Problems" that are being brought. This stuff is decades old.
Thats fine, but the reason why most people here are talking down on you is because the stuff that you brought to us is decades old and has already been addressed countless times. Its the equivalent of bringing up arguments for a flat earth. The arguments that disprove that, are out there, and have been out there for a while now, to the point that there really isnt anything to discuss anymore.
Not when the arguments are still made to this very day.
Youre right. The arguments, like the one you brought to me regarding mt Saint helens, is still being made to this very day.
As I said, it's convenient for hecklers in their failure to refute decades old information to come after me in their own insecurity.
Wait, what? No no, these things have been refuted. The reason why were himming and hawing at you is because this stuff has been refuted decades ago. Its as i said, its embarrasing for people to bring up decades old, dead, and thoroughly refuted arguments from the grave. We are facepalming at your arguments.
You yourself admit these dating methods can be problematic, so what's the problem? I don't understand what your argument is. I posted an article that showed potential problems with dating methods, and you admit that this article is correct in that accusation.
No, i didnt. Here is what i said:"And no, the dating methods are consistently reliable. Much like clocks are consistently reliable in telling time. Yes, if you misuse a dating method, it becomes unreliable, but the same goes with ANY method of determining ANYTHING."
This isnt a problem with the dating methods. Its a problem with the application.
If i break a clock and say "Hey, look, this clock doesnt tell time accurately, therefore all clocks are unreliable", That isnt a problem with the clocks. Known limitations exist, and these limits arent problems. My car cant fly, it is limited to ground transportation methods, but the fact that these limits exist doesnt mean theres a problem with my car.
Limits are not problems. The only problem is when you try to use things outside of their limitations. If you drive your car off the cliff thinking it will fly, that is a problem. But its not the cars problem, the car is working perfectly, thats yours.