Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm (This post was last modified: October 15, 2010 at 3:30 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 15, 2010 at 8:39 am)Zen Badger Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Haha, so you think you can use the Calculated Time Definition to argue against the Observed Time Definition? Lol, well then I don't know what to tell you. "It's not 1 meter it is 100 cms!!" lol.
What does this even mean?
P.s again I ask, where the bible and science differ do you believe that science will be wrong?
(October 15, 2010 at 8:39 am)Zen Badger Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Haha, so you think you can use the Calculated Time Definition to argue against the Observed Time Definition? Lol, well then I don't know what to tell you. "It's not 1 meter it is 100 cms!!" lol.
What does this even mean?
P.s again I ask, where the bible and science differ do you believe that science will be wrong?
PPs. Why do we believe of an old universe?
Because that's what ALL of the evidence points to.
They are two different ways of looking at time. Scientists will use the observed time definition to name certain cosmological events, like "Supernova 1989A". This is observed time, the supernova happened in 1989 under the observed time defintion. Now if you were to ask them when it "really" happened- they would give you the time the event happened using calculated time. So however far away it was in light years. The days of creation are described in scripture using observed time (since Calculated Time Definition wouldn't be around until the 20th Century). So to argue against the account of Creation (which remember is using observed time) by using calculated time is kind of like two ships missing one another at night. Under the observed time definition light propagates an-isotropically, but the same beams of light move isotropically under the calculated definition of time. Since velocity has a time component, if you change the defintion of that time component you change the manner in whcih the velocity is observed without really changing the actual velocity. It's kind of like measuring something in meters per hour rather than meters per second. So when everyone tries and throw the speed of light in a vaccum at me and all that, I am well aware of that and agree with that. However, that is using the other time definition so that was not even what I was arguing for. So the cosmos could have all been created billions of years ago using calculated time, but using observed time from Earth they would have all appeared on the fourth day of Creation. Does that help any?
As to when science contradicts scripture, kind of the same thing. By definition science can't really "disprove" scripture because science deals with non-absolutes while scripture makes absolute claims. I do not believe you can disprove an absolute with a non-absolute. It also kind of depends on the event in scripture. Science has shown that virgins do not give birth (again, not an absolute but fairly close right?). Well scripture deals with this as a miraculous event, so it is not claiming that it happened by natural means. So to try and disprove this portion of scripture with science would be inappropriate. The creation of the Earth and Cosmos is detailed as a supernatural event in scripture- so I tend not to try and disprove this with natural means. However, the age of the Earth since creation would be natural so that is one area science can weigh in on. So that is why I like discussing it. Does that help?
(October 15, 2010 at 11:22 am)IceSage Wrote: You know, my reply to this post was going to be much different, until I realized the OP claims to study science. So, my question has changed to: How exactly do you claim to be knowledgeable about how science works, yet be so completely and utterly ignorant of how the process of determining scientific outcomes works?
When you claim you have a degree in "Science" do you mean "Christian Science" by chance?
I just find it amazing that 9th graders have a better concept of how scientists work than you do, while claiming that all the scientists today are completely and utterly wrong, while also attacking paleontologists describing them as bumbling buffoons who most likely had a hard time piecing together jigsaw puzzles as a child. While that's not literally what you said, you pretty much could have said that, coming from the descriptions you've given.
Either way, I enjoy it when you post because I'm fond of your avatar. So, keep spouting your ignorance, I don't mind. =P
Nope, got my degree from a secular university. I actually had the highest grade in my Advanced Evolutionary Biology course (taught by an Atheist), so I don't know if that is a poor reflection on the other non-creationists in the class or what, but it's true.
If you could please point out where my understanding of Science is off, that would be great. Please give a source too, so I can see who you listen to when defining science. Though I did notice that you made a slight appeal to consensus in your post. This may show a little bit of your lack of scientific knowledge, or maybe you just didn't mean to do it. The majority of scientists not only could be wrong, but are often wrong- just look at the history of science. So to jump on me for believing this is the case today is an error I believe. Thanks for the avatar compliment though!
(October 15, 2010 at 2:32 pm)Chuck Wrote: You are a disgrace even to Christianity.
I am giving you the opportunity to change that assertion into an argument, here is your chance.
Please tell us all how you define "disgrace".
Since you do not actually know me, I am assuming you mean my actions are a disgrace to Christianity. So next please tell us all how you understand Christianity. Next tell us all how you understand my actions. Next tell us all how you believe these actions are a disgrace to Christianity. There! Now is your chance.
(October 15, 2010 at 2:42 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
(October 15, 2010 at 2:14 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well if the assumptions that go into the dating method on Earth can be shown to be erroneous (which I believe they have numerous times), then there is no reason to make these same erroneous assumptions about matter in space. That would be an exercise in futility. I don't think you under stood what I meant by a magnitude of 8. It's not just 8 times faster, it's a base 10 logarithmic scale so it would be 10^8 times faster. Which of course is more than enough to account for the difference in dates. I refuse to believe secular Scientists have really looked very hard into this matter. It's like the fact that none of them ever looked for a measurable C14/C12 ratio in diamonds because there presuppositions told them it would be impossible for there to be any because diamonds are too old. When the Creation guys insisted they do it, what do they find? Measurable amounts of the ratio in diamonds!
It doesn't matter what you mean by a magnitude of eight.
The fact of the matter is that radiometric dating is solid and accurate for the following reasons:
1) The rate is constant
- the reason it has neven shown to be not constant is because it would show up in a sample at any point in time given the number of samples collected over the years.
2) Violating the rate of decay violates the fundemental laws of physics
- every time you've attempted to show this to not be the case, the incident is anecdotal and have been proven wrong by actual people doing actual science and further speeding up the decay rates of all radioactive material on the planet at the rates you suggest would melt the planet if the earth's radioactive materials decayed in the manner and speed you describe - not to mention what would happen to the sun and every star in the universe. As that video of mine proved beyond a reasonable doubt, every creationist theory seems to somehow result in the universe never having possibly existed.
3) As orogenicman pointed out, your one instance was proven false and there are no others.
- The things that actually throw off decay rates that trick scientists to believing in something being a different age are usually forces that make the necessary samples look younger, not older.
4) Even if something could throw off decay rates to make samples look older,
- then the change should not look uniform throughout the entire inner solar system. The moon has no geologic forces (except moon quakes caused by tidal forces with the earth) or chemicals that can change the measurement of the age of the rocks and the same especially holds true for asteroids and the martian rocks we've collected. They're all in sychronization with one another and the oldest rocks on earth, mars, and every place else all show up at being billions of years old - not millenia.
And frankly, I'd rather believe in a natural force that radiates reliably like clockwork so many times over the solar system than a ancient book written in the bronze age before they even knew that the Earth wasn't surrounded by a crystal sphere, wasn't flat, and that the sun generates light and that it's not a seporate thing from the sun and the stars (and so on). The former is science. The latter is fantasy.
You might prefer to refuse to believe in the entire scientific community and all the work they've done in the centuries, but science has produced the food, machinery, and toys we all enjoy in this modern world and we can look at space rocks precisely because of the scientific 'world view'.
Creationism is an obstruction to science at best and destructive to science at worst. It's not science and it's easily proven false by simply looking at the way things are instead of making up answers about the universe.
EDIT: By the way, since the earth is 4.54 x 10^9 years old, being wrong by a factor of 10^8 means all that radiation decayed in a matter of 45.4 years. That amount of energy, as you might guess, would annihilate the planet. The universe nonwithstanding.
Well actually that was not the only case, it's observed quite often. He did not refute that claim either because the article he cited pre-dated the research I cited. Kind of hard to refute research that has happened yet.
Well I said "up to" a magnitude of 8, so your 45 year thing doesn't mean much.
You still haven't addressed the issue that if all these rates are constant then how come the same sample gives different ages when different radiometric dating methods are used on it? I would expect them all to be the same if the rates have been constant. So do you believe all natural rates have been constant? Are you a true uniformitarian? I can guarantee you are going to start using the same arguments as I do when I show that using a lot of other rates we can extrapolate young ages for the Earth. "Oh those rates have changed but my rates have not". What happens when Carbon 14 dates and radiometric dates conflict? Which one do you choose then?
Actually the Bible never says the Earth is flat, that's often claimed by people who don't know how to conduct proper exegesis.
October 15, 2010 at 3:57 pm (This post was last modified: October 15, 2010 at 3:59 pm by TheDarkestOfAngels.)
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well actually that was not the only case, it's observed quite often. He did not refute that claim either because the article he cited pre-dated the research I cited. Kind of hard to refute research that has happened yet.
Uh... no.
This can't happen 'quite often.' This can't happen "sometimes" or "maybe" or "there are cases of"
- You're missing the point -
For this crackpot theory to be valid, it would have to be off, by a factor of hundreds of millions, for every sample ever collected both on and off the earth by exactly the same degree.
As you should be keenly aware, nothing in nature is capable of that kind of outright deception. Nevermind the fact that radiometric dating can't be falsified by current dating methods for all the reasons you have yet to actually refute.
None of your so-called 'evidence' has any possibility of this happening.
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I said "up to" a magnitude of 8, so your 45 year thing doesn't mean much.
That's nice.
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You still haven't addressed the issue that if all these rates are constant then how come the same sample gives different ages when different radiometric dating methods are used on it?
Because dating methods go by the kind of sample - there is a method for uranium dating, one for carbon-14, and one for all the other kinds of radioactive isotopes that can be found naturally.
It's the same kind of thing as to how you're not going to ace a science class by submitting the answers for your theology class and scientists are keenly aware of this sort of thing.
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I would expect them all to be the same if the rates have been constant. So do you believe all natural rates have been constant?
Yes.
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Are you a true uniformitarian? I can guarantee you are going to start using the same arguments as I do when I show that using a lot of other rates we can extrapolate young ages for the Earth. "Oh those rates have changed but my rates have not". What happens when Carbon 14 dates and radiometric dates conflict? Which one do you choose then?
You do know that dating carbon 14 is radiometric dating, right?
Well, at least one of the radioactive isotopic elements used for that purpose.
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually the Bible never says the Earth is flat, that's often claimed by people who don't know how to conduct proper exegesis.
Indeed, I must have forgotten where the spherical earth ends or how many corners a spherical earth has.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
(October 14, 2010 at 7:16 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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 made no such omission. Do I have to tell you a third time?
I told you before what my "assumptions" on regarding the Earth as several billion years old are and obviously you weren't listening, so allow me to expand. I never made this claim; I simply accepted the findings of what real scientists unveiled. Neither they nor I state this in the context of absolute certainty. I don't know for sure the age of the Earth. Science also does not claim to know the exact age of the planet as the dating technology and calculations continue to advance in their accuracy, it doesn't take much to appreciate the hard work that's gone into developing these techniques to give us more reliable, more precise data. The tests conducted satisfied my standards of evidence since they presented only logic and observations by studying the Earth, which is acceptable to me and I feel justified until someone with a better explanation comes along. I'll say it again my position on this, and never can be, concrete. Some naysayer may call out the findings but guess what? They offer nothing in its place but dogmatic nonsensical drivel from a bunch of goat herders, they don't conduct intensive study or research, they're simply skeptical of skepticism. Science is not as counterproductive as this.
It's the philosophers who waste their time with concepts such as absolute knowledge. It's an ogre of wasted effort. Neither you nor I can know anything for sure - this is OLD news. This whole reality as we perceive it may be a lie or delusion for all we know, but to the best of our knowledge it's demonstrably real, its manifests itself, we are physical. To the best of our knowledge and understanding it's a reality where one can catalogue our observations of natural phenomena and derive logically sound conclusions that have explanatory power and meaning from them. While we can never know anything "for certain" we may continue to investigate, obtain theories and make predictions by simply using the evidence at hand.
Quote: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.
Well at least you're being honest with me in that you've no evidence, but hardly respectful. I ask for clarity and you present nothing. I've taken the time to answer your questions in this debate now you have the decency to respond to mine.
Quote:If you could please point out where my understanding of Science is off, that would be great. Please give a source too, so I can see who you listen to when defining science. Though I did notice that you made a slight appeal to consensus in your post. This may show a little bit of your lack of scientific knowledge, or maybe you just didn't mean to do it. The majority of scientists not only could be wrong, but are often wrong- just look at the history of science. So to jump on me for believing this is the case today is an error I believe. Thanks for the avatar compliment though!
This was my point. While many scientists can be wrong... You seem to think you've single-handedly come to a conclusion, where peer-reviewed, repeatable testing is wrong.
Have you down your own research into what you're claiming, or are you currently an armchair scientist at the moment?
I like the way you think!
...But please stop thinking, it's not you.
October 15, 2010 at 4:31 pm (This post was last modified: October 15, 2010 at 4:54 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 15, 2010 at 3:57 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well actually that was not the only case, it's observed quite often. He did not refute that claim either because the article he cited pre-dated the research I cited. Kind of hard to refute research that has happened yet.
Uh... no.
This can't happen 'quite often.' This can't happen "sometimes" or "maybe" or "there are cases of"
- You're missing the point -
For this crackpot theory to be valid, it would have to be off, by a factor of hundreds of millions, for every sample ever collected both on and off the earth by exactly the same degree.
As you should be keenly aware, nothing in nature is capable of that kind of outright deception. Nevermind the fact that radiometric dating can't be falsified by current dating methods for all the reasons you have yet to actually refute.
None of your so-called 'evidence' has any possibility of this happening.
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I said "up to" a magnitude of 8, so your 45 year thing doesn't mean much.
That's nice.
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You still haven't addressed the issue that if all these rates are constant then how come the same sample gives different ages when different radiometric dating methods are used on it?
Because dating methods go by the kind of sample - there is a method for uranium dating, one for carbon-14, and one for all the other kinds of radioactive isotopes that can be found naturally.
It's the same kind of thing as to how you're not going to ace a science class by submitting the answers for your theology class and scientists are keenly aware of this sort of thing.
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I would expect them all to be the same if the rates have been constant. So do you believe all natural rates have been constant?
Yes.
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Are you a true uniformitarian? I can guarantee you are going to start using the same arguments as I do when I show that using a lot of other rates we can extrapolate young ages for the Earth. "Oh those rates have changed but my rates have not". What happens when Carbon 14 dates and radiometric dates conflict? Which one do you choose then?
You do know that dating carbon 14 is radiometric dating, right?
Well, at least one of the radioactive isotopic elements used for that purpose.
(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually the Bible never says the Earth is flat, that's often claimed by people who don't know how to conduct proper exegesis.
Indeed, I must have forgotten where the spherical earth ends or how many corners a spherical earth has.
Wow you dodged a lot there. You never answered, what happens when two things are supposedly the same age, but when you date the organic matter with radio-carbon dating it comes out to a vastly different age than the non-organic matter that is dated with radio-metric dating? We see this a lot with fossils that still have some organic matter left. Which date do you accept then?
It would not have to change the rates off the Earth for radiometric decay, only on the Earth. Go back and see the work by Dr. Newton. Using calcuated time definition the matter from off the Earth would date to be old. I know you don't get the whole time defintion thing, but give a look.
You never gave us the specific passage that supposedly says the Earth is flat, so I guess I will just assume it does not exist.
(October 15, 2010 at 3:57 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 7:16 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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 made no such omission. Do I have to tell you a third time?
I told you before what my "assumptions" on regarding the Earth as several billion years old are and obviously you weren't listening, so allow me to expand. I never made this claim; I simply accepted the findings of what real scientists unveiled. Neither they nor I state this in the context of absolute certainty. I don't know for sure the age of the Earth. Science also does not claim to know the exact age of the planet as the dating technology and calculations continue to advance in their accuracy, it doesn't take much to appreciate the hard work that's gone into developing these techniques to give us more reliable, more precise data. The tests conducted satisfied my standards of evidence since they presented only logic and observations by studying the Earth, which is acceptable to me and I feel justified until someone with a better explanation comes along. I'll say it again my position on this, and never can be, concrete. Some naysayer may call out the findings but guess what? They offer nothing in its place but dogmatic nonsensical drivel from a bunch of goat herders, they don't conduct intensive study or research, they're simply skeptical of skepticism. Science is not as counterproductive as this.
It's the philosophers who waste their time with concepts such as absolute knowledge. It's an ogre of wasted effort. Neither you nor I can know anything for sure - this is OLD news. This whole reality as we perceive it may be a lie or delusion for all we know, but to the best of our knowledge it's demonstrably real, its manifests itself, we are physical. To the best of our knowledge and understanding it's a reality where one can catalogue our observations of natural phenomena and derive logically sound conclusions that have explanatory power and meaning from them. While we can never know anything "for certain" we may continue to investigate, obtain theories and make predictions by simply using the evidence at hand.
Quote: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.
Well at least you're being honest with me in that you've no evidence, but hardly respectful. I ask for clarity and you present nothing. I've taken the time to answer your questions in this debate now you have the decency to respond to mine.
You did not understand what I was talking about. I was talking about your absolute claim that there is no such thing as absolutes. It's like a man saying, "I can only tell lies"- that is a self-refuting claim for obvious reasons.
Which questions would you like answered?
(October 15, 2010 at 4:03 pm)IceSage Wrote:
Quote:If you could please point out where my understanding of Science is off, that would be great. Please give a source too, so I can see who you listen to when defining science. Though I did notice that you made a slight appeal to consensus in your post. This may show a little bit of your lack of scientific knowledge, or maybe you just didn't mean to do it. The majority of scientists not only could be wrong, but are often wrong- just look at the history of science. So to jump on me for believing this is the case today is an error I believe. Thanks for the avatar compliment though!
This was my point. While many scientists can be wrong... You seem to think you've single-handedly come to a conclusion, where peer-reviewed, repeatable testing is wrong.
Have you down your own research into what you're claiming, or are you currently an armchair scientist at the moment?
Well the work I do now doesn't involve the age of the Earth. However, I do follow the peer-reviewed work on boht sides of the issue and I feel the peer-reviewed work on the creation side of it is superior in methodology and interpretation. There is good and bad work on both sides though, I am sure you agree. Like I believe (as do several creation groups but not all of them) that this current work with Noah's Ark done by the Chinese is a Hoax. I think it's important that both sides are honest when they are wrong.
Hey,
I am moving over to "The Statler Waldorf Balcony", don't want to clutter up your guys' board too much so I am condensing all my activity to one thread. See you guys there if you want to keep talking.
Historic measurements of the velocity of light from 1862 to 1977. The early discrepencies were due to methodology/instrument errors. As the methodology and instruments were refined, the measurements settled down quite nicely. So, does anyone really want to argue that these miniscule differences account for the huge discrepency between the observed size of the universe (based on the speed of light) and the magic number that creationists would have us believe is true?
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
Even though this guy is a nutty muslim his bible quotes seem to be accurate.
We are used to apologists telling us that the plain ( and childishly simple language ) of the bible does not mean what it says. Why should you be any different? Or believable?
In dorset, not a million miles from where I live is an area called the jurrasic coast, where the earth has undergone a huge upheaval and you can litterally walk along the layers of sendimentation.
In some places you have millions of years of sedimentation on laying on the side and laying on top of that a few more millons of years of layers of sedimentation.
downBeat Wrote:In dorset, not a million miles from where I live is an area called the jurrasic coast, where the earth has undergone a huge upheaval and you can litterally walk along the layers of sendimentation.
In some places you have millions of years of sedimentation on laying on the side and laying on top of that a few more millons of years of layers of sedimentation.
I think this just made my "places to visit before I die" list. And I didn't have one of those before hand. That's kinda sad isn't it? both that it's on my list and I didn't have a list beforehand. That's all I had to say.
![[Image: c-curve.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i132.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq9%2Fjryates%2Fc-curve.jpg)
![[Image: siggy2_by_Cego_Colher.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=fc08.deviantart.net%2Ffs71%2Ff%2F2010%2F183%2F9%2F2%2Fsiggy2_by_Cego_Colher.jpg)
![[Image: grand_canyon02.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.vegas-dreaming.com%2Fimages%2Fgrand_canyon02.jpg)
