|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 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 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dad, please propose a mechanism, any mechanism, in any former nature you prefer, in which a tree can or would grow multiple rings every day. How does that happen? Was in winter several times daily back then, and trees shed their leaves on the odd hours?
I’m seriously asking - how does that happen? "The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
It took many years for science to figure out how photosynthesis and growth works here in this nature. Why would you expect them or others to know how it works in a different nature?
That is like saying, how does a tree grow new fruit every month, and a different new fruit on the same tree each month as we are told will happen in the future? No one in science knows. Nor does anyone else today. That doesn't mean we could claim it will never happen. Same with the record of the past. If people live 1000 years or trees grow in weeks we can't say it did not happen. Nor can we say how it happened. Yet when science claims ancient tree rings or isotope ratios (etc) represent things formed in our present nature, they are saying the things I mentioned could not happen. If you want to claim that rules of this present nature applied you need to show us that it existed. Not just believe real hard and model the past on those beliefs!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
All the science done by any scientist is recent and in this nature. It is your belief and claim it always existed on earth. You cannot support that. So remember never ever ever to call it science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
All the science done by any scientist is recent and in this nature. It is your belief and claim it always existed on earth. Because we have no reason (evidence) to suppose otherwise. If you have such evidence then present it here.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And we have a plethora of evidence there have been no changes of the magnitude daddy needs to validate his hallucinations. He's already ignored the evidence I posted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
dad writes: Perhaps you and Jonf could do that since it was him who mentioned Noah and how there were many stories that were different about the flood. JonF does not mention Noah in Message 1288 that you replied to. There was a great deal of factual information in that post. You ignored all of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
You don't get to define science. So remember never ever ever to call it science."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Looking at that post, I ignored nothing. It is all based on a belief in a same nature in the past. Why ignore that? Prove it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Nor do you get to use beliefs as a definition for science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
No one cares what you believe. You either have evvidence for the same nature in the past that you use in models or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
How old is the earth dad? Roughly.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You either have evvidence for the same nature in the past that you use in models or not. Of course we do. Our evidence is this: There is NO evidence that "nature" *did* changed any time in the last 13.7 billion years. Without there being some evidence of this change you keep going on about why should we just assume it did? Because it makes your evil religious delusions palpable in your tiny little mind? Rejected. We say it didn't change because there is no evidence that it did. You say it changed? Why? Based on what? Show your evidence. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
A couple specifics that might help the kid learn would be:
The waste products at the Oklo Reactor match the waste products seen in modern reactors. The reactions observed in distant stars match the reactions seen in our local sun. I'm not sure the kid is capable of actually understanding but perhaps he might be capable of understanding that change leaves evidence. If things were different in the past we would see the evidence of such changes. No such evidence has ever been found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
There's quite a bit of evidence for the constancy of radioactive decay rates, which blows young Earth out of the water. Radioactive decay depends on the most fundamental properties of the Universe. If they changed in the past there would be a wide range of detectable side effects. THose side effects aren't there.
Physicist Stever Calip wrote a post on talk.origins some time ago listing some of these side effects. Fron The Constancy of Constants, Part 2*:
quote:_________________________ * Either my Internet is whacked out or talkorigins.org and the wayback machine are both down, so that points to Google's cached copy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
I get to use whatever definition the scientists use - and they do not use one that has anything to do with belief. Nor do you get to use beliefs as a definition for science."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024