(October 13, 2010 at 4:52 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(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.

Very valid argument. I completely agree.

(October 13, 2010 at 4:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Presuppositions based on empirical evidence, yes. In the case of the universe's age would be due to, among other things, the age of the oldest photons to reach our planet.
In the case of our planet, the age of the oldest terrestrial (and lunar) rocks.

(October 13, 2010 at 1:18 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How old you think the Earth is.

Why you think this.

What presuppositions you had before examining the evidence and making your conclusions.

1. The exact age of the Earth hasn't been determined yet, it's difficult to calculate from the planet's accretion disk and from the oldest rocks found on the surface, but based on evidence from radiometric age dating I would say it's at least four billion years old or so.

2. We have the math. Radiometric dating is still of one of best-known techniques used to establish geological timescales.

3. I make no concrete conclusions here because the exact age of the Earth has yet to be calculated. Scientific research never stops and the process is still being refined to pinpoint an exact measurement.

(October 13, 2010 at 4:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

They're not correct in any sense of the word, they're as foolish as those who say you cannot prove Pluto takes 248 years to orbit unless you live that long to observe it orbit the sun once. We have statistical evidence and empirical analysis, this celestial body conforms to the laws of physics and astrodynamics. We have the math, and from the results of methodical investigations and measurements can we determine how long the minor planet will take to orbit without witnessing it.

They're eager to forget there's more than one type of evidence.

The oldest zircon in metamorphized rock is 4.3 billion years old, that puts a fairly firm lower limit on earth's age. No meteroric material is over 4.6 billion years old, that puts a reasonable upper limit. But an upper limit does not concern biblical literalists since the bible is greatly wrong in the other direction.

Buddhists seems to be more wiser or more cunning, depending on your point of view. They mostly declined to be pinned down on aspects of the world outside of oneself that could easily be refuted.

(October 13, 2010 at 4:40 pm)Chuck Wrote: 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?

Haha wow you really are all over the place aren't you? Throwing around light theory mixed in with the Doctrines of Grace and John Calvin. This must be the ADHD method of discussion haha. Actually many Scientists are moving away from the Isotropic Light Model because it provides a lot of time problems for the big bang. I think the an-isotropic model is a more valid model. Which can be summed up by the Astrophysicist Robert Newton as follows...

"..using the observational definition of time, the speed of light depends on its direction of propagation relative to the observer. (Again, this is a property of spacetime, and not a property of light. All relativistic particles such as neutrinos would also move at different speeds in different directions.) Light travels at the canonical speed of 1,079 million km/hr only when moving tangentially relative to an observer. It moves at half the canonical value when moving directly away from the observer, and it moves infinitely fast when travelling directly toward the observer—travelling instantaneously from point A to point B."

So this would mean that whenever you observe something happen in Space it actually just happened, rather than 13 billion years ago or however many light-years the object is away. This model holds up in all the tests so it really is an exciting new approach.

---

(October 13, 2010 at 4:52 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(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.

The insult in that case is not the Valid argument, it just doesn't take away from nor further the argument. Which I said originally, they are fluff and do not belong in discussions.

---

(October 13, 2010 at 4:56 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 4:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

Presuppositions based on empirical evidence, yes. In the case of the universe's age would be due to, among other things, the age of the oldest photons to reach our planet.
In the case of our planet, the age of the oldest terrestrial (and lunar) rocks.

That assumes an isotropic propagation of light. Which of course is an Old-Earth presuppostion.

---

(October 13, 2010 at 5:49 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 1:18 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How old you think the Earth is.

Why you think this.

What presuppositions you had before examining the evidence and making your conclusions.

1. The exact age of the Earth hasn't been determined yet, it's difficult to calculate from the planet's accretion disk and from the oldest rocks found on the surface, but based on evidence from radiometric age dating I would say it's at least four billion years old or so.

2. We have the math. Radiometric dating is still of one of best-known techniques used to establish geological timescales.

3. I make no concrete conclusions here because the exact age of the Earth has yet to be calculated. Scientific research never stops and the process is still being refined to pinpoint an exact measurement.

(October 13, 2010 at 4:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.

They're not correct in any sense of the word, they're as foolish as those who say you cannot prove Pluto takes 248 years to orbit unless you live that long to observe it orbit the sun once. We have statistical evidence and empirical analysis, this celestial body conforms to the laws of physics and astrodynamics. We have the math, and from the results of methodical investigations and measurements can we determine how long the minor planet will take to orbit without witnessing it.

They're eager to forget there's more than one type of evidence.

Well you have emperical evidence to support a conclusion. You do not have emperical proof that your conclusion is one hundred percent accurate.

---

(October 13, 2010 at 6:19 pm)Chuck Wrote: The oldest zircon in metamorphized rock is 4.3 billion years old, that puts a fairly firm lower limit on earth's age. No meteroric material is over 4.6 billion years old, that puts a reasonable upper limit. But an upper limit does not concern biblical literalists since the bible is greatly wrong in the other direction.

Buddhists seems to be more wiser or more cunning, depending on your point of view. They mostly declined to be pinned down on aspects of the world outside of oneself that could easily be refuted.

What about the dozens of other dating methods that put an upper limit on the Earth much lower than 4.3 Billion years? Do those ones just not count because they disagree with your presupposition that the Earth is billions of years old? You really think that radio-metric dating is the only way to date the Earth? Au contraire.

(October 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Haha wow you really are all over the place aren't you? Throwing around light theory mixed in with the Doctrines of Grace and John Calvin. This must be the ADHD method of discussion haha. Actually many Scientists are moving away from the Isotropic Light Model because it provides a lot of time problems for the big bang. I think the an-isotropic model is a more valid model. Which can be summed up by the Astrophysicist Robert Newton as follows...

Granted I'm not fully nuanced as far as what is and isn't popular in science today, but I'm fairly (read: fully) certain that people who study things that involves the speed of light still agree with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which explicitly states what the speed of light can and cannot be, which is still quite the foundation of modern physics as it has always been in the past century or so.
I'm also quite certain that a variable speed of light is not accepted among the scientific body becuase of all the other laws of physics that would violate that have been proven empirically time and time again.
Astronomy, which is extremely consistent and extremely precise in measuring these little details absolutely depend on relativity and each discovery is a result of the correctitiude of Einstein's theorum.
Whatever 'astrophysicists' you've drudged up to say otherwise are wrong and can easily be proven as such. The videos I've linked on the Young Earth thread you posted proves that beyond a reasonable doubt as does high school and college physics.

(October 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So this would mean that whenever you observe something happen in Space it actually just happened, rather than 13 billion years ago or however many light-years the object is away. This model holds up in all the tests so it really is an exciting new approach.

What tests? The actual experts in this field and the people who observe space for a living all seem to think that light travels at a constant speed, which is consistent with all observations everywhere at any time with a consistency greater than virtually anything else that has ever been observed in the universe to the point to where we can measure the different speeds in which waves of light travel within light itself, like a ripple in a pond.
That is how precise our measurements are.

(October 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That assumes an isotropic propagation of light. Which of course is an Old-Earth presuppostion.

Which is once again, based on empirical evidence.

(October 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well you have emperical evidence to support a conclusion. You do not have emperical proof that your conclusion is one hundred percent accurate.

Nothing is one hundred percent accurate. Ever.
Claims to the contrary is something that religion does erroneously.

(October 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(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.

How old do you think the earth is?

(October 13, 2010 at 6:47 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Haha wow you really are all over the place aren't you? Throwing around light theory mixed in with the Doctrines of Grace and John Calvin. This must be the ADHD method of discussion haha. Actually many Scientists are moving away from the Isotropic Light Model because it provides a lot of time problems for the big bang. I think the an-isotropic model is a more valid model. Which can be summed up by the Astrophysicist Robert Newton as follows...

Granted I'm not fully nuanced as far as what is and isn't popular in science today, but I'm fairly (read: fully) certain that people who study things that involves the speed of light still agree with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which explicitly states what the speed of light can and cannot be, which is still quite the foundation of modern physics as it has always been in the past century or so.
I'm also quite certain that a variable speed of light is not accepted among the scientific body becuase of all the other laws of physics that would violate that have been proven empirically time and time again.
Astronomy, which is extremely consistent and extremely precise in measuring these little details absolutely depend on relativity and each discovery is a result of the correctitiude of Einstein's theorum.
Whatever 'astrophysicists' you've drudged up to say otherwise are wrong and can easily be proven as such. The videos I've linked on the Young Earth thread you posted proves that beyond a reasonable doubt as does high school and college physics.

(October 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So this would mean that whenever you observe something happen in Space it actually just happened, rather than 13 billion years ago or however many light-years the object is away. This model holds up in all the tests so it really is an exciting new approach.

What tests? The actual experts in this field and the people who observe space for a living all seem to think that light travels at a constant speed, which is consistent with all observations everywhere at any time with a consistency greater than virtually anything else that has ever been observed in the universe to the point to where we can measure the different speeds in which waves of light travel within light itself, like a ripple in a pond.
That is how precise our measurements are.

(October 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That assumes an isotropic propagation of light. Which of course is an Old-Earth presuppostion.

Which is once again, based on empirical evidence.

(October 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well you have emperical evidence to support a conclusion. You do not have emperical proof that your conclusion is one hundred percent accurate.

Nothing is one hundred percent accurate. Ever.
Claims to the contrary is something that religion does erroneously.

I don't think you get it. The An-isotropic Propagation of Light Model is completely consistant with Albert's Theories. You cannot prove one of the two models to be correct because emperical proof requires direct observation and the two models appear identical to the observer, that's the point. Like I said early, many are moving towards the newer model because it solves a lot of time problems fo the Big Bang theory. However, it also makes it so that you can know longer use Starlight to date the Universe, bummer dude.

The youtube (seriously? youtube?) video you posted dealt with "C-decay", which has nothing to do with An-Isotropic Propagation of Light. So you missed the mark on that one.

The Astrophysicist I quoted IS an expert and HAS spent his career observing the stars, so you didn't prove anything there.

You said, "Nothing is one hundred percent accurate. Ever." Is this statement not 100 % accurate then? :-)

---

(October 13, 2010 at 6:49 pm)Skipper Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(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.

How old do you think the earth is?

Between 6000 and 7000 years.

(October 13, 2010 at 7:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Between 6000 and 7000 years.

I'm gonna piss myself!

I told you guys, just another creationist asshole.