|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
OS writes:
Are you suggesting that the decay of Potassium-40 is reversible? And that that would call into question the validity of Potassium-Argon dating? If so, pertaining to the topic, how do you explain the correlations with all of the other dating methods? Wouldn't they all have to be reversible at an exactly coincidental rate?
I was wondering if there was a way to convert Argon-40 into Potassium-40, in a lab.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
OS writes:
You don't seem to know what you're talking about. The gist of this thread (and its several companions) is that different dating methods, based on entirely different processes, produce the same dates. To show that one method is invalid, you'd have to show that they are all invalid.
Tree rings are the training ground of radiocarbon daters, and ice core samples is impossibly stupid;
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
marc9000 writes:
Before you try to criticize science, you should learn what some of the terminology means.
So they're "absolutely" repeatable and observable, but not "provable"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
starman writes:
What else do you use?
You try to limit the future and past to the mere constraints of the current world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
starman writes:
Because we have no reason to think that reality has magically changed. If water is wet today, it seems reasonable to assume it was wet a million years ago. Why wouldn't you?
Why use anything unless you know? starman writes:
Creationists don't.
Just admit ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
starman writes:
That's backwards. If something HAS changed, we need evidence to SHOW that it has changed. We can't base our thinking on, "it MIGHT have changed" because we have no way of knowing HOW it might have changed. In the absence of any evidence of change, the sensible conclusion is that there hasn't been a change.
We need a reason to think the forces and laws that govern the atoms that make up cells and determine how things exist on earth was the same, if we intend to build all models on the assumption it was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
starman writes:
We know that the Bible is fiction because it doesn't match reality. There were no plants before sunlight. The Bible is just wrong about that, and about a thousand other things.
You have then no reason to doubt the different past recorded in history and Scripture are wrong...or right...or anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
starman writes:
That's what we've been telling you. You need to LOOK at reality, not just prattle that reality was different in the past.
Reality is not constrained to under your nose or your back yard actually. Reality includes the future and past.... starman writes:
Again, if you want to claim that the "current nature" is different from the "past nature", you have to have evidence. Show us some evidence. You can claim that pigs could fly in the past but you need evidence to back up your claim. Unfortunately for you, all of the evidence we have shows that the "past nature" of the earth was the same as the "current nature".
... not just the current nature on earth!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
starman writes:
Look again. Creationist nonsense has been kicked out of the schools time and time again. It's YOUR world that is being rocked.
Rocks your world when someone doesn't believe your fables eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
starman writes:
Almost everybody I know is a Christian. I don't hate them. You are not here to debate but to air hatred of God and Christians. If you want to discuss Christianity or the Bible, we have threads for that. You're clearly out of your depth in the science threads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
starman writes:
You're just repeating yourself. Try learning how science works before making a fool of yourself in the science forums.
Either try to evidence your claimed nature in the past or you may not use it in models.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
creation writes:
No, it's pretty easy to believe. Do you answer posts at all? Hard to believe creationists used to lose debates.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
You're making the same mistake that rookie creationists always make. You're giving your 'profound' replies to a dozen different topics. Razd asked fishbowl boundary.. Pick one and discuss it in depth. Then you might understand why creationists can't win.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
You have no depth. Pick a topic and discuss it in depth. All the so called science fables on origins are made up nonsense. They have no depth. Hint: this topic is about age correlations - i.e. it's about a lot of different, unrelated methods that all come up with the same answers. Even if you could shoot down one of them - and nobody ever has - you'd still be at square one. You'd have to shoot down all of them to prove that the conclusion is false.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
Nope. Many of them are completely independent. Take your own examples: Tree rings...starlight...decay...fossils...etc. Show us how they are interrelated.
All so called correlations are based on the same belief... creation writes:
You're the one who has to bring it if you want anybody to take you seriously. Bring it.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024