2012 in review

Posted: January 2, 2013 in Uncategorized

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

19,000 people fit into the new Barclays Center to see Jay-Z perform. This blog was viewed about 62,000 times in 2012. If it were a concert at the Barclays Center, it would take about 3 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. William Bacon says:

    Enjoy your site and I am a Christian,I wonder if you could help me with this it explains itself

    https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/147-problems-for-the-theory-of-evolution

    Now this http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146

    Says all lies so I am confused can you comment

    Thank you W G BACON

    • matthew2262 says:

      Thank you for your comment WG. I’m glad you enjoy my site, and I’d be happy to try and help.
      Here is the first point to make: Both websites you linked me to are written by laymen. And both laymen did not reference the sources of their information. Now, I myself, am a laymen. I do have knowledge of science at a university level, but I am far from being a scientist. This is why I heavily cite and source my articles. Now with that said, the skeptical author from your 2nd link admits that the papers he read are full of “geological jargon” that will “make your head spin.” This is testimony of someone who clearly doesn’t grasp the technical aspect of radioisotope dating. This alone casts serious doubts on any conclusions he reaches in his post. This is where it is important to consider your source of information. If you’re going to read up on radioisotope dating, it’s important to follow the works of geochemists or geologists (like Dr. Andrew Snelling for example).
      Now, about the dating of this rock sample; the skeptical author is missing the point at times. The point is that Austin knew the age of the rock sample being well below the threshold of minimum amount of time needed for dating (in this case 2,000,000 years) and had it tested, not to prove that the earth is young, but to prove that dating techniques are not as accurate as they’re made out to believe. Think of it this way; let’s say no one knew when that particular rock formation on Mt. St. Helen’s formed. A geologist stumbles across it not knowing its age, so he submits a sample for dating. That unknowing geologist would get results that stated the rock was thousands of years old, not six years old. As the author wrote, the rock needs to be at least 2 million years old for the dating method to work, thus one must already assume the rock is millions of years old in order to be dated. It is a circular philosophy: The rock is millions of years old because AMS told us so > we could only use AMS because the rock is millions of years old. This clearly poses a problem if one does not already have an assumed age for the rock in which they want dated. If (in this case) AMS only works accurately if the sample is millions of years old, then only rocks assumed to be millions of years old will be tested.
      Furthermore, the reasons the author provides as to why the rock sample yielded an age in thousands of years only further discredit the dating method. Left over argon remains in the AMS? In this field of work this is known as “contamination.” And there is no degree of contamination that can be considered acceptable, because any contamination will lessen the precision of the dating. For this reason, lab techs try earnestly to remove any contamination from their equipment as well as the samples being dated to ensure the highest precision. In my opinion, using contamination as an excuse does not support his argument well.
      His second reason that argon may have become trapped inside the rock, throwing off the dating method also further discredits the dating method. This is technically a form of fractionation, or dilution of the sample. And if it is possible for rock to be contaminated with argon not related to radio decay, then one of the principle foundations radiometric dating relies on (in this case, that radio decay is the only cause for the ratio of potassium to argon in samples), completely collapses.
      Now, the author does bring up a great point; one date doesn’t mean anything. Just because you date one rock and get one odd result doesn’t debunk the entire dating method. Radioisotope dating produces varying results even on the same samples. The only “appropriate” way to use any form of radioisotope dating is to date multiple samples multiple times, and then taking all the data and crunching the numbers to find the “accuracy” and “precision” of the sample ages. However, with that said, it would be a fallacy to say that Austin is the only one who has done this. Using an AMS is expensive! And multiple samples being date multiple times is even more expensive and often considered not practical. You’d be surprised on how many papers from secular scientists are based off one or two samples being dated just once or a couple times. This is a problem that transcends the entire scientific community, not just Austin.
      In conclusion, Austin’s dating is not a magic bullet that single handedly tears down uniformitarian dating assumptions. Austin’s dating just brings to light some of the flaws in radioisotope dating. And just as the author writes, nothing he brought up is new. This is true. The assumptions and unquantifiable variables needed for radioisotope dating to be correct is well known by the scientific community. The difference is that they still use the method and trust its results regardless because there is no other way to date the material. And having a faulty method is, in their eyes, better than having no method at all.
      I hope this helps you to some degree understand the issue. Be sure to stay tuned to my blog because I am currently writing a paper on radiocarbon dating for my Nuclear Science class that is related to this issue.

      Take care,

  2. william Bacon says:

    I thought you might like to see this web-site http://www.faithinterface.com.au/science-christianity/why-i-am-not-a-young-earth-creationist

    Bang goes my global flood and my 24 hour day .No on second thought’s I will keep the global flood and my 24 hour day

    have fun Jesus is Lord

    • matthew2262 says:

      Hi William, that blog represents a very common perception of the Bible that is supported by very weak arguments. There are very strong grounds for refutation on everything he wrote. Naturally I’d love to respond to these articles, but as you can see, there has been quite an outpouring of conversation in the comments below his article and I would add to the white noise. It is great to see people standing firm though and not compromising. Thanks William and take care.

    • matthew2262 says:

      Well, I couldn’t help myself, and I felt God pushing me to respond to the link you sent me. So I responded this morning. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s