|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Marie Curie and her friends and associates are well over a century ahead of you on this, Creation. The paths of nuclear decay, and the paths that don’t get followed, were pretty well worked out by 1950. Old news, in other words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: No. You do not.
When you say "what nature" do you have a hypothesis or belief as to what natures there are? razd writes: this is a science thread, and that means arguments pro and con must involve the scientific methodologies Long as they cover it, of course. Too bad they don't for origins issues eh?
razd writes: Guess the same is true of the bible? It has plenty of those. Unlike science, they are not sometimes wrong either.
As long as a theory provides usable predictions razd writes: what evidence do you have that a "former nature" existed that was significantly different from what we see around us, from historical, geological and archaeological studies of the past.. History? Long lives and spirits recorded in Sumer and Egypt. Geographical? Strange to mention that, what do you want countries and coordinates? Archaeological? Not sure we have a lot of that for the very early dawn of earth?Science? None there at all, it is not even a contender in the debate as to what nature existed. razd writes: That can't cover anything but this nature. If a ring grew fast several thousand years ago you have no way of knowing. If you want to discuss the whole of dendrochronology.. Edited by creation, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix 1 quote box.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
razd writes: Guess the same is true of the bible? It has plenty of those. As long as a theory provides usable predictions What are the Top 5?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
razd writes: So prove that the next isotopes in the chain cam from decay? True, but that gives us additional evidence for an old earth, because
Corrected to show list in original post. If you copy from the "Message you're replying to" in "Peek Mode" then you can also copy the coding. Isotopes do not naturally occur is pure concentrations, they only occur in pure concentrations through decay. Decay chain - Wikipedia
quote: The last one was what tipped off the discovery of the Oklo reactors. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You are forgetting the / to close the quotes (should be [/qs] to close) ... I've fixed them here
razd writes: No. You do not. When you say "what nature" do you have a hypothesis or belief as to what natures there are? That was Phat replying to you in Message 685, which you already answered with a dodge.
razd writes: this is a science thread, and that means arguments pro and con must involve the scientific methodologies Long as they cover it, of course. Too bad they don't for origins issues eh? This thread is not about misinformed comments on abiogenesis, and origins is not part of the thread. There are other threads about abiogenesis you can comment on, or you can start one at Proposed New Topics razd writes: Guess the same is true of the bible? ... As long as a theory provides usable predictions There are no theories in the bible, and discussing them is irrelevant to this thread. Please deal with the evidence on this thread rather than posting pot-shots with no substantiating evidence. Your problem is to deal with the evidence, not talk about the bible.
... It has plenty of those. Unlike science, they are not sometimes wrong either. Again, this is not a bible study thread, but a science thread. Whether or not you or anyone else thinks predictions in the bible are tested is immaterial to this thread.
razd writes: what evidence do you have that a "former nature" existed that was significantly different from what we see around us, from historical, geological and archaeological studies of the past.. History? Long lives and spirits recorded in Sumer and Egypt. ... Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 14-C levels in artifacts in Egyptian pyramids give the same dates as the historical record, thus validating the 14C usage to correlate artifacts to tree rings.
... Geographical? Strange to mention that, what do you want countries and coordinates? Indeed, because curiously, what I mentioned was geological not geographical. Looks like you need to pay more attention, rather than trolling for it.
... Archaeological? Not sure we have a lot of that for the very early dawn of earth? And amusingly, we do not need to go back to the "very early dawn of earth" to show that young earth creationism is a bald false view of reality. That the data extends well beyond any YEC scenario has been shown, that it cross-correlates and provides consilient results across many different measurement systems shows that these data are robust and the conclusions made from the data are valid.
Science? None there at all, it is not even a contender in the debate as to what nature existed Except you have yet to establish that you know what science is or how it works. Your comments bleed ignorance.
razd writes: That can't cover anything but this nature. If a ring grew fast several thousand years ago you have no way of knowing. If you want to discuss the whole of dendrochronology.. But I do. Read the thread and stop shooting in the dark of ignorance. Just like starman ... going around to a bunch of threads and posting simplistic comments of "you have no way of knowing" is not an argument, is not science, is not debating in good faith. Your task, should you undertake an actual debate on the subject at hand, is to show that what I have posted on this thread is false, not to make stuff up. This task involves you providing substantiatine evidence and some form of theory to demonstrate your argument provides a better explanation. Until then you have squat and all you are doing is trolling. Just like starman did. Sadly, for you, all your arguments provide are teaching moments for other people reading this thread to see and understand the science versus your threadbare arguments based on fantasy and imagination. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Coragyps writes: Marie Curie and her friends and associates are well over a century ahead of you on this, Creation. The paths of nuclear decay, and the paths that don’t get followed, were pretty well worked out by 1950. Old news, in other words. No. No relation. Edited by creation, : No reason given. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
newcatseye writes: What are the Top 5? Bethlehem, virgin, captivity of Israel, temple destroyed, kingdoms after Babylon itemized...to name a few.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: Pure concentrations? Where in the article does it mention that? What exactly is a pure concentration?
Isotopes do not naturally occur is pure concentrations, they only occur in pure concentrations through decay. Decay chain - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
newcatseye writes: What are the Top 5? Bethlehem, virgin, captivity of Israel, temple destroyed, kingdoms after Babylon itemized...to name a few. Predictions are for things that happen in the future and not the past, silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Another teaching moment ...
Pure concentrations? Where in the article does it mention that? What exactly is a pure concentration? This, readers, is why creationists make such poor debaters: they are stunningly ignorant of the topics that they pretend to be able to talk about. They think their opinions are equal to scientific results.
... What exactly is a pure concentration? We don't even need pure concentrations to identify the products of radioactive decay. A pure -- or purer -- concentration is when one isotope is disproportionately represented, rather than all the ones that occur in nature in the proportions they naturally occur in. Isotopes cannot be separated chemically - there are no reactions that depend on isotope value ... Thus if you have disproportionately high levels of Lead-206 or Lead-207 you know that they are (end) products of decay.
quote: As noted in Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? the lead at the center of uranium halos only comes from decay of uranium: pure isotopes, no Lead-204. The proportions of the other decay isotopes and elements can be determined from the densities of the rings formed. They all fit a consistent pattern of decay chain production.
... Where in the article does it mention that? ... Where they talk about the discovery of the reactors. That was the clue to finding them. Perhaps if you actually read the messages, and actually investigated the issues you might be able to put together a better argument. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: This thread is not about you tossing out the word science and have it embrace whatever you like either.
This thread is not about misinformed comments on abiogenesis, and origins is not part of the thread. There are other threads about abiogenesis you can comment on, or you can start one at Proposed New Topics
razd writes: There are no theories in the bible, and discussing them is irrelevant to this thread. Please deal with the evidence on this thread rather than posting pot-shots with no substantiating evidence. Your problem is to deal with the evidence, not talk about the bible.
Testable predictions I think was what was being discussed, not theories. Keep up. Since you claim predictions, post them. Remember, a prediction is not a circular argument designed to fit the evidence you beliefs.
razd writes:
False. That is NOT relevant unless it came about in this nature. Your circular reasoning so called dating collaboration is indeed circular. You asusme a same nature in the past for both, and then claim by so doing, the imaginary dates agree.
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 14-C levels in artifacts in Egyptian pyramids give the same dates as the historical record, thus validating the 14C usage to correlate artifacts to tree rings.
razd writes: Hold on...what exactly is geographical that you claim here??
Indeed, because curiously, what I mentioned was geological not geographical razd writes: Sorry, no way. You should face the fact that the dates you use are faith based and not accepted as reality by YECs. For example, my opinion of when the flood was is about 70,000,000 years ago in your imagined science time. That equals about 4500 real actual years ago. So when you claim something is beyond YEC time remember you are only talking about faith based religious time that is not accepted.
And amusingly, we do not need to go back to the "very early dawn of earth" to show that young earth creationism is a bald false view of reality. That the data extends well beyond any YEC scenario has been shown, that it cross-correlates and provides consilient results across many different measurement systems shows that these data are robust and the conclusions made from the data are valid.razd writes: You have yet to establish that science works at all outside the fishbowl of this present nature. Your comments ooze self righteous dark religion.
Except you have yet to establish that you know what science is or how it works. Your comments bleed ignorance.razd writes: But I do. Read the thread and stop shooting in the dark of ignorance. Just like starman ... going around to a bunch of threads and posting simplistic comments of "you have no way of knowing" is not an argument, is not science, is not debating in good faith. And you pretend that somewhere hiding in a desert of belifs that you post as if they were science ,there is some weighty proof or support for. So far it doesn't look like there is anything but smoke and no fire.
razd writes: Your posts on any thread are not as deep or mystical or important as you thought apparently. In posts to me you offered preciesly zero! Allusions to some great posts you made. Get serious.
Your task, should you undertake an actual debate on the subject at hand, is to show that what I have posted on this thread is false, not to make stuff up. This task involves you providing substantiatine evidence and some form of theory to demonstrate your argument provides a better explanation.razd writes: Some may not be learning what you think! Some may learn that maybe science doesn't really know after all.
..your arguments provide are teaching moments for other people reading this thread to see and understand the science versus your threadbare arguments based on fantasy and imagination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Great. So you claim it was after the fact. No last week either? Let's look at how they went after the fact to SN1987a (and almost everything else in space as needed) to predict what kind of star actually blew up since they were wrong. Then look at the rings...they never predicted were there. Etc etc.
Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Great. So you claim it was after the fact. No last week either? Let's look at how they went after the fact to SN1987a (and almost everything else in space as needed) to predict what kind of star actually blew up since they were wrong. Then look at the rings...they never predicted were there. Etc etc. And now you're gonna Gish Gallop? Nice, this is a textbook failure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
That is NOT relevant unless it came about in this nature. Your circular reasoning so called dating collaboration is indeed circular. You asusme a same nature in the past for both, and then claim by so doing, the imaginary dates agree. The evidence for some "other nature" is totally lacking. To try and rely on this imaginary "other nature" to negate the parts of science that disprove bible-based claims is ridiculous.
You asusme a same nature in the past for both, and then claim by so doing, the imaginary dates agree. You assume an "other nature" in the past, then claim the dates don't agree. One approach is based on evidence, the other on religiously-based fantasy.
You should face the fact that the dates you use are faith based and not accepted as reality by YECs. For example, my opinion of when the flood was is about 70,000,000 years ago in your imagined science time. That equals about 4500 real actual years ago. So when you claim something is beyond YEC time remember you are only talking about faith based religious time that is not accepted. You have to place the flood 70 mya because all earlier placements for the flood have been disproved. Actually, all proposed dates for the "flood" have been disproved. As far as something "not accepted as reality by YECs" -- that's pretty funny. Why should scientists care a whit about what YECs believe and don't believe? YECs avoid evidence, logic, and the scientific method like vampires are supposed to avoid garlic. Most of the attention you get is because its amusing to poke holes in your fantasy.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Lots of relation. If the only source of an isotope is, say, in the decay chain from uranium 235, that’s where it had to have come from. Unless, I guess, it was planted by Satan to deceive mankind, like some say fossils were.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024