(April 18, 2013 at 8:16 pm)Tonus Wrote: You say "as far as I am concerned." So this is not a proven claim, but one you feel is valid for correcting the measurements that indicate an 'old' Earth?
Of course it’s not proven, but there are lines of reasoning to support it. The decay rates being uniform throughout Earth’s history isn’t proven either, but you accept that assumption because you feel it’s valid because it “corrects” the Biblical timeline.
Quote: So you assert. However Dr. Wiens and practically every other physicist and geologists thinks otherwise. Got any actual evidence to back up your bullshit?
No, the old earth physicists assume the rates have been uniform (young Earth physicists assume otherwise). There’s no reason at all to assume these elements have experienced constant decay throughout Earth’s history. We know that certain conditions can cause accelerated decay and to assume those conditions were never present in Earth’s history is a bit absurd.
Quote:
You just proved my point. According to radiometric dating these eruptions all happened at the same point in time, in fact according to the method these eruptions all happened in the present (a date of Zero), and yet these methods are separated by 3,500 years of recorded history. The method doesn’t work, that proves it right there. I already know what you’re going to try and argue though. You’re going to try and argue that being 3,500 years off is well within the margin of error for an Earth that is billions of years old. However, that’s using the conclusion (the Earth being billions of years old) to try and justify the method (radiometric dating) which is fallaciously begging the question. You have provided empirically verifiable evidence that demonstrates radiometric dating is a sham.
(April 18, 2013 at 9:49 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Now hold one on minute, Statler. I'm not attacking the validity of your argument, I'm attacking it's soundness.
I know that.
Quote: You've asserted (amongst other things) the premise that "[t]he Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent". You've also asserted that your argument is sound, which requires your premises to be true. By your own admission, you know this to be the case.
Yep.
Quote: Yet, you've not made any attempt to demonstrate that the aforementioned premise is true, and as far as I can tell it's nothing but a presupposition.
Because I also know that in logic the arguer is not obligated to demonstrate their premises are true. Premises are by definition merely assertions that are assumed to be true unless otherwise refuted, that’s how deduction works. So until you can refute either of my premises the argument is considered to be sound (because it’s structurally valid and has un-refuted premises) and therefore proves the God of the Bible exists.
Quote: As the truth value of that premise is not readily apparent (and in fact has the appearance to be manufactured from whole cloth), I cannot accept it as axiomatic.
That’s not how axioms work. Additionally, whether or not you recognize the truth value of the premise is irrelevant to the soundness of the argument.
Quote: Therefore, the truth of it is going to need to be demonstrated in order to accept the soundness of your argument.
According to whom? You? I think I’ll stick with the logicians on this one.
Quote: Your protestations notwithstanding, it is your responsibility to demonstrate it's truth if you expect anyone to be convinced of it's soundness.
The soundness of an argument is independent of its ability to persuade; many people (such as yourself) are not persuaded by sound arguments because people are not always rational beings.
Quote: In addition, you've made no attempt to enumerate what your "Biblical conceptual scheme" encompasses. As there are numerous Biblical interpretations, all claiming to be true, without a thorough inventory of the specific claims that your view holds... Well, let's just say that it would be unreasonable to expect someone to attempt to refute an unknown set of claims. You yourself have said as much. (And before you start, I have made no claims, and have asked you to refute nothing, only to support your own claims.)
The logically consistent and cogent interpretation of scripture is that which is held by those in the Reformed community.
Quote: If you're unwilling or unable to do so, then this discussion is fruitless, as you've given me nothing but assertions, and nothing to argue against.
Your move, Statler.
My willingness and ability have nothing to do with it, I am not logically obligated to do anything that I have not already done. I am not here to do your work for you, you now have a logically valid and as it stands sound proof for God's existence if you are unwilling or unable to refute it then you’re rejecting it upon irrational grounds.
I noticed you dodged my question, do you believe the “Socrates proof” is sound?
(April 19, 2013 at 2:08 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: See how you need to make up unsupported hypothesis to try and justify your position.
No, I need to only point out the unsupported assumption that your dating method is completely based upon.
(April 17, 2013 at 12:16 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You haven't even proved that the supposed infallible source even exists!
The Bible exists, I think everyone knows that.
Quote: You make the most ludicrous claims backed by nothing and then say we are illogical because we saw the man behind the curtain.
No, you try and use sources that we know are fallible to try and disprove the infallibility claims of another source, that’s what is ludicrous.
Quote:
Real evidence can be shown to be reliable by supporting facts, good documentation, peer review, repeatability. You know good science.
Real evidence supports facts? What are facts then? How are they different than evidence? How do you know what’s a real fact and what’s not a real fact?
(April 19, 2013 at 5:00 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Yes, the decay was much faster in the past.
That's because the decay is an exponential which tends to zero, at infinity... how fast it tends to zero depends on the element decaying.
I am not talking about just an exponential curve, I am talking about periods of much greater acceleration than even that.
Quote: But they all follow the same exponential basic rule.... but with different time constants.
When you refer to the isotopes with shorter half-lives are you referring to the assumed extinct radionuclides or the ones produced in the laboratory?
Quote: Do you have any special insight into these long lived isotopes to claim that they work in differently from the remaining isotopes? If not, then why don't you assume they behave exactly their short-lived counterparts? Like Quantum-mechanics determines that they should behave.... like the fit to the exponential rule hints with high accuracy. Do you?
Well Quantum mechanics doesn’t determine anything, scientific laws are by definition descriptive not normative. There’s actually several lines of evidence to support accelerated nuclear decay. There’s been extensive work done with Helium retention in Zircon that suggests the elements underwent billions of years of decay (at your assumed rate) but only in 4,000-8,000 years.
Quote: If not, then why do you make such a preposterous proposition?
Why is it preposterous? I think believing that the Earth is over 4 billion years old is preposterous. Have you ever even taken the time to contemplate that number? To think that life could even sustain itself for more than 3 billion years on this planet is downright absurd. The Biblical timeline explains the evidence we observe far better than the currently accepted uniformitarian model. You’re a decent enough fellow, and you seem to have a good head on your shoulders, just give that some thought.
