(October 14, 2010 at 4:14 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(October 14, 2010 at 4:00 pm)theVOID 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.

Sit down and learn newbie.

Saying that a particle decays on average after 10^8 years also means that if you have a group 10^8 particles you will see one decay every year because even though the average particle decays ever 10^8 years, there is a probability that 1 in a set of 10^8 particles will decay in within 1 year, if you had 10^80 particles you would get 10 decays a year, and 10^800 100 decays, and this idea applies to all decay rates. That's not a hell of a lot of particles comparatively, you could quite easily measure decay rates to a really high degree of accuracy by seeing rate of decay in large sets of particles.

It seems unlikely that he would see your point when he could divide 1E2 by 4.5E9 and be 5 orders of magnitude off. Maybe he uses the new peer reviewed concept of non-isotropic division, able to solve many problem in the Big Bang theory, that is suitable for use on a earth 6000 years, give or take 5 orders of magnitude, old.

Nah, I just messed the syntax up. Simple mistake. Pointing this out does not change the argument any. It's like pointing out someone's bad grammar- if you have to do it to feel smart go ahead, but if proves nothing.

(October 14, 2010 at 4:42 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

(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.

When did I ever say that? The dating process is still being refined as we speak, and as far as I'm concerned that's my justification for accepting practical meaningful knowledge whereas absolute knowledge is unattainable in any instance.

Quote:

Quote:How old do you think the earth is?

Between 6000 and 7000 years.

1. What's your justification for this?
2. What evidence do you have to support this?
3. You criticise dating-techniques yet why can't you give an exact measurement yourself?

You just tried to make an absolute statement that there is not such thing as absolutes. I love it when you guys use self-refuting logic.

I have not presented any evidence becaause this thread is designed to get at the heart of Old-Earth assumptions. Once we can all be intellecutally honest about the assumptions and the faith that goes itno the Old-Eearth position then we can finally begin to dance. I know what I am doing.

---

(October 14, 2010 at 5:08 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(October 14, 2010 at 4:49 pm)orogenicman Wrote: An intelligent alien life form reading claims made by creationists, and only the claims made by creationists, might come to the conclusion that the 20th century never happened.

Maybe they would conclude the creationists belong to a separate species.

A superior one no doubt.

---

(October 14, 2010 at 5:09 pm)theVOID Wrote: That would just be the planet that Satan's angels fell to...

Satan does not have angels, and they didn't fall to any other planet. Maybe your guys' problem with Christianity is that you don't know what Christianity is?

No more on anisotropic light speed?

Shame that, you have yet to show how it supports a young universe.

(October 14, 2010 at 7:16 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Satan does not have angels, and they didn't fall to any other planet. Maybe your guys' problem with Christianity is that you don't know what Christianity is?

That was a joke in reference to a Plantinga argument.

I know full well what Christianity is, don't be so naive to think otherwise. I reject your conclusions not because I don't understand, but because I do understand it and see plainly that arguments for the existence of God do not come close to meeting my epistemological view of justified belief.

Quote:I know what I am doing.

We know what you are doing as well, and it is dishonest, to say the least. You claim to be a scientist, and yet fail to recognize one of the most fundamental aspects of the scientific method - the burden of proof. Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionary biologists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts, whereas all creationists have to offer in rebuttal is one poorly provenienced bronze age book. Sorry, but the Bible is not a science book, and so anyone trying to use it as such should consider therapy to cure them of their delusions. Finally, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

(October 14, 2010 at 7:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nah, I just messed the syntax up. Simple mistake. Pointing this out does not change the argument any. It's like pointing out someone's bad grammar- if you have to do it to feel smart go ahead, but if proves nothing.

False analogy, You used the false conclusion you reached to argue that we cannot measure decay rates because we are only around for a small portion of the average time of decay, bad grammar cannot be used to satisfy this end.

You can't have it both ways, either you accept your mistake and concede that we can know with a high degree of accuracy the average decay rates of various isotopes or you ignore all of the actual data and stick to your initial line of reasoning.

Too bad for you the former (and accurate) understanding shoots down your unsubstantiated belief in a young earth.

So you've decided to drop anisotropic light, good move, It was a dumb idea to start with.