(April 18, 2013 at 6:02 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: See Stat that's the problem. The one your vast scientific knowledge should let you identify in the line of crap you are being fed. The different elements have different decay rates. If they had experienced accelerated decay rates in the past they would yield dissimilar results now instead of similar ones. If you speed up their various decay rates the error increases. It doesn't decrease. You have to speed up time not the decay rates if you want your argument to work.
That’s not how accelerated nuclear decay works at all; each rate is accelerated proportionally, so it does not change their relation to one another at all.
Can you point to any examples where a rock of empirically known age has been accurately dated using radiometric dating?
(April 18, 2013 at 6:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: What position might that be? I'm waiting for you to support yours. I have presented none.
It doesn’t matter, if you think you have succeeded where all the great Western Philosophers have failed by adopting a logically consistent anti-Biblical view of reality then please do share, until you do that forgive me for being a bit more than skeptical.
I am not obligated to support mine any further, why is that so hard to understand? Human experience and intelligibility would not be possible if the Biblical view of reality were false, since those things are possible we know the Biblical view of reality is true. That’s a completely valid argument; it’s now up to you to refute it.
Quote: So demonstrate that why this is so.
Why do I have to?
Quote: Your argument hinges upon this proposition, and you've provided no justification to suppose that it is so.
I am not obligated to do so, it’s deduction.
Quote: The soundness of your argument depends upon it.
No it doesn’t, deductive soundness is not contingent upon anything I do.
Quote: 2) All extant or possible non-Biblical claims are necessarily not logically cogent and consistent.
Quote: No, that is precisely what you said when you said this:
I think you are confusing the word precisely with the word implicitly.
(April 16, 2013 at 5:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: only the Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent.Yes, and if the Biblical view is logically consistent and cogent and has any element to it that is true then the premise “all other views of reality are necessarily false” logically follows because the law of non-contradiction prohibits two contradictory views of reality from both being true.
Quote: All. Not mine. Not ones with features in common with mine. All of them - extant and possible.
Yup, but I am not required to demonstrate that.
Quote: The rest of your TL;DR screed looked suspiciously like a smokescreen intended to distract from the basic fact that you did not provide any justification for point 1) above.
Smokescreen? That actually seems to be what you are doing here.
Quote: You don't get to assert point 1) and then move on as if you work were done.
According to whom? You haven’t demonstrated your assertion above, I can only play by the same rules you are playing by.
Quote: We can move on in this discussion once you've provided justification for that claim, otherwise, this discussion is dead on arrival.
No, we can move on once you refute my argument, otherwise this discussion has proven that the God of scripture indeed does exist.
Are you really holding the position that the following proof is unsound?
P1 All humans are mortal
P2 Socrates is a human
C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal
