(October 13, 2010 at 2:36 pm)Darwinian Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 8:57 am)Shell B Wrote: Statler, could you please create an introduction thread here http://atheistforums.org/forum-11.html so we can get to know you a little better? This is sort of a loaded topic, I believe. It might be easier if you introduce yourself and we get an idea of where you stand. Thanks.

You do know he's a troll don't you? :S

Pretty obvious.

Still, trolls can be fun at times.

(October 13, 2010 at 2:39 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: He could prove to be otherwise, given the chance.

I really admire your patience and faith on them, I'll give you that.

(October 13, 2010 at 3:07 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The assumption that decay rates have remained the same is based on sound science; namely, that we have done numerous things to radioactive materials (increased pressure, temperature, etc) and the decay rates has stayed the same.

What we should be asking is what evidence you provide that suggests the Earth is 6,000 years old (or however old you think it is). I only say 6,000 since you mentioned you believe God made it in 6 days, and when someone says that, they are usually a YEC.

I should also point out that you seem to misunderstand what an Ad Hominem attack is. If you insult someone in the middle of discourse, it is an insult, not an Ad Hominem. An Ad Hominem only occurs when you attempt to use the insult to somehow attack your opponent's argument (i.e. "You can't believe what he says because he's a moron.").

Well if the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old then you cannot "observe" that decay rates are constant because yoru observation is vastly too small and insignificant compared to the whole time period. Even if you could observe it for 100 years it would still only be 2.2X10^-11 percent of the total time. Even a curved line looks straight when you only observe an insignificant portion of it. So you're going to have to provide some other backing as to how you know those rates are constant.

(October 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well if the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old then you cannot "observe" that decay rates are constant because yoru observation is vastly too small and insignificant compared to the whole time period. Even if you could observe it for 100 years it would still only be 2.2X10^-11 percent of the total time. Even a curved line looks straight when you only observe an insignificant portion of it. So you're going to have to provide some other backing as to how you know those rates are constant.

This reminds me of the arguements people used to make around here that unless someone was around during the big bang event then I could never truely prove that it happened.
Either way, the concept is ridiculous. Given the sheer volume of radioactive material on the planet and the fact that the laws of physics have been consistent throughout the entirety of human experience and beyond (since we can actually see billions of years into the past by simply looking up into the sky) we can easily tell that radioactive decay is consistent with mathmatical precision simply for the same reason that all radiation, everywhere, throughout human history has been consistent and not just with one material but all materials at their individual decay rates. Not only that, but people who measure these things can calculate the decay rate of a material to an insignificant fraction of a second.

If radioactive materials were inconsistent or could change to any degree over any length of time, it would have been spotted long, long ago by someone from somewhere around the planet because that kind of flaw would be obvious to anyone who makes their career around such concepts and it would affect many other areas of science.

(October 13, 2010 at 3:07 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I should also point out that you seem to misunderstand what an Ad Hominem attack is. If you insult someone in the middle of discourse, it is an insult, not an Ad Hominem. An Ad Hominem only occurs when you attempt to use the insult to somehow attack your opponent's argument (i.e. "You can't believe what he says because he's a moron.").

You may not classify personal attacks as Ad Hominem but they do nothing to add to the Logical Validity of the argument (aslo are against forum rules) so essentially they are just as fallacious.

(October 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well if the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old then you cannot "observe" that decay rates are constant because yoru observation is vastly too small and insignificant compared to the whole time period. Even if you could observe it for 100 years it would still only be 2.2X10^-11 percent of the total time. Even a curved line looks straight when you only observe an insignificant portion of it. So you're going to have to provide some other backing as to how you know those rates are constant.

Therefore a bunch of gullible desert herders who hasn't heard of the concept of "experiment", but carry around a divine box that talks to them through a hereditary priesthood, were right, and the earth is no more than 6000 years old.

Incidentally people who actually do experiments with much better boxes can directly measure forces governing decay directly over the entire 4.5 billion years in which the earth existed. By measuring the decay in the output curve and spectrum of supernova at different distances, we directly observe radio active decay behavior of very specific isotopes created during the supernova at different times in the past, and we directly constraint the behavior of nuclear strong force underlying those decays. So, yes. We've checked the decay rate over the entire 4.5 billion years, we've done 13 orders of magnitude better than your severely order-of-magnitude-befuddled 2.2 E-11 percent assessment, and found that force governing radio active decay has not changed.

(October 13, 2010 at 3:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You may not classify personal attacks as Ad Hominem but they do nothing to add to the Logical Validity of the argument (aslo are against forum rules) so essentially they are just as fallacious.

It's not really about opinion. An ad hom is an insult used to refute someone else's argument. For example, "You're an asshole, therefore you are wrong." That is an ad hom, by the only definition. Being against the rules doesn't make an insult fallacious. It just makes it a no-no.

I do think that insults can add to the "logical validity" of an argument on rare occasions. However, they are largely unnecessary.

(October 13, 2010 at 3:59 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well if the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old then you cannot "observe" that decay rates are constant because yoru observation is vastly too small and insignificant compared to the whole time period. Even if you could observe it for 100 years it would still only be 2.2X10^-11 percent of the total time. Even a curved line looks straight when you only observe an insignificant portion of it. So you're going to have to provide some other backing as to how you know those rates are constant.

This reminds me of the arguements people used to make around here that unless someone was around during the big bang event then I could never truely prove that it happened.
Either way, the concept is ridiculous. Given the sheer volume of radioactive material on the planet and the fact that the laws of physics have been consistent throughout the entirety of human experience and beyond (since we can actually see billions of years into the past by simply looking up into the sky) we can easily tell that radioactive decay is consistent with mathmatical precision simply for the same reason that all radiation, everywhere, throughout human history has been consistent and not just with one material but all materials at their individual decay rates. Not only that, but people who measure these things can calculate the decay rate of a material to an insignificant fraction of a second.

If radioactive materials were inconsistent or could change to any degree over any length of time, it would have been spotted long, long ago by someone from somewhere around the planet because that kind of flaw would be obvious to anyone who makes their career around such concepts and it would affect many other areas of science.

Using Old-Earth presuppositions to justify Old-Earth presuppositions....classic! Well people who say you cannot prove the Big Bang unless you were there to observe it are correct in a manner of speaking. If your definition of "proof" is at the emperical level then they are correct.

---

(October 13, 2010 at 4:19 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well if the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old then you cannot "observe" that decay rates are constant because yoru observation is vastly too small and insignificant compared to the whole time period. Even if you could observe it for 100 years it would still only be 2.2X10^-11 percent of the total time. Even a curved line looks straight when you only observe an insignificant portion of it. So you're going to have to provide some other backing as to how you know those rates are constant.

Therefore a bunch of gullible desert herders who hasn't heard of the concept of "experiment", but carry around a divine box that talks to them through a hereditary priesthood, were right, and the earth is no more than 6000 years old.

Incidentally people who actually do experiments with much better boxes can directly measure forces governing decay directly over the entire 4.5 billion years in which the earth existed. By measuring the decay in the output curve and spectrum of supernova at different distances, we directly observe radio active decay behavior of very specific isotopes created during the supernova at different times in the past, and we directly constraint the behavior of nuclear strong force underlying those decays. So, yes. We've checked the decay rate over the entire 4.5 billion years, we've done 11 orders of magnitude better than your severely order-of-magnitude-befuddled 2.2 E-11 assessment, and found that force governing radio active decay has not changed.

The old Red Herring comes out. We are not talking about the Ark of the Covenent if that is what you are mischaracterizing here.

Again, you are using an Old-Earth presuppostion (That Starlight propagation is isotropic) to justify another Old-Earth presupposition. I don't hold either of these presuppositions, so you missed my position on that shot.

---

(October 13, 2010 at 4:25 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 3:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You may not classify personal attacks as Ad Hominem but they do nothing to add to the Logical Validity of the argument (aslo are against forum rules) so essentially they are just as fallacious.

It's not really about opinion. An ad hom is an insult used to refute someone else's argument. For example, "You're an asshole, therefore you are wrong." That is an ad hom, by the only definition. Being against the rules doesn't make an insult fallacious. It just makes it a no-no.

I do think that insults can add to the "logical validity" of an argument on rare occasions. However, they are largely unnecessary.

How is an insult ever a valid argument?

1. Isotropic propogation of star light is not a "old earth" supposition. Old earth doesn't not need any supposition about the propogation of star light at all to derive. "Isotropic propogation", if by that you meant light travels at the same speed in all directions across all times, is independently deduced as the most parsimonious explanation consistent with all evidence. Based on this lower limit on the age of the universe is independently derived using standard candle method of distance measurement.

2. The separate lower limit on the age of the universe produced by observation allows old earth supposition to stand. otherwise the age measurements of one or the other needs revision. We don't revise for the bible. But we do revise for evidence.

3. The observation of the decay of light curves of supernova does not depend on "isotropic propogation" of light to constrain the rate of decay of radio active elements produced in the explosion. We've seen the same decay behavior far and near, whether your light propogation theory places supernova at the beginning of the universe 13 billion years ago, or 6000 years ago, the decay behavior hasn't changed. And the non changing behavior of decay could THEN, be used to forbid the 6000 year interpretation, or indeed anything much shorter than 13 billion years.

4. But, pray quantify your theory of "non-isotropic propogation" of star light, it would be delightful to hear. Light travels so fast in direction that it covers 13 billion light years in 6000 years, perhaps? Or is it that light from supernove less than 6000 light years away is red shifted and dimmed exactly in our direction so as to be consistent with each other, with conservation of energy, and while looking like it was from 13 billion light years away?

5. Now about that education thing. Relevent science did in fact all happen in the last 6,000 years. Mostly in the last 150 years. So even your imaginary Calvinest tulip god probably has no strictures against your studying its history in detail, and understand how different aspects of the understandings of the universe was arrived at, unless you imagined a stricture against that also.

6. Exactly what position do you hold? Beside bible as you've come to read it is always right and whatever contradicts the bible as you read it is wrong?

(October 13, 2010 at 4:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How is an insult ever a valid argument?

Say I know someone who is a racist prick. Said racist prick wants to get a job as, say, a preschool teacher. I say, "You shouldn't do that because you are a racist prick." The argument is just as valid as saying, "Even if you don't teach your misguided values to those small children, you're a liability and should not seek such a profession."

It's neither here nor there. I'm just saying, insults can be quite valid, though unnecessary.