Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2017 4:45 AM
359 online now:
CRR, Dr Jack, Heathen, PaulK, Pressie (5 members, 354 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,489 Year: 19,095/21,208 Month: 1,854/3,111 Week: 75/574 Day: 7/68 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
333435
36
3738Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3522
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 526 of 569 (815074)
07-15-2017 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by herebedragons
07-15-2017 10:17 AM


One link is to satire site
You do realize that the "lie through their teeth" link is to a satire site (http://babylonbee.com/)?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by herebedragons, posted 07-15-2017 10:17 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by herebedragons, posted 07-15-2017 8:19 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 531 by marc9000, posted 07-16-2017 3:31 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1334
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 527 of 569 (815088)
07-15-2017 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by Minnemooseus
07-15-2017 5:10 PM


Re: One link is to satire site
You do realize that the "lie through their teeth" link is to a satire site

Lol, no I guess I didn't follow that link, just the second one. I guess I should make a note in my post which link I was quoting.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-15-2017 5:10 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 889
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 528 of 569 (815115)
07-16-2017 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by Coyote
07-15-2017 3:22 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
marc9000 writes:

...non-observational science that isn't provable.

This one line alone shows you have little understanding of science and how it works.

First, NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS PROVED OR PROVABLE. Sorry for the caps, but this is far from the first time I've had to post this, as creationists either don't listen or don't accept what science is and how it actually functions.

You've possibly seen the oval shaped "DUPONT" emblem at some point in your life, it's a large, long-time company. Most of the times I've seen it, it has the little one-line description under it; "The Miracles Of Science". Here's a link to one of their main pages;

http://www2.dupont.com/...ourced_Materials/en_US/vision.html

quote:
DuPont strives to be the world's most dynamic science company, creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. DuPont believes it can deliver on this vision with uncompromised performance from renewable resources, while minimizing its operational impact on the environment. As an ingredient supplier with unparalleled experience and expertise in science and technology, DuPont has the unique ability to have far-reaching impact on virtually every major industry — helping grow shareholder value, while contributing to social and environmental progress worldwide.

This is traditional science. It's been around longer than "war against Christianity" science. The type of science Dupont and many other free-market companies do is 100% testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable. War-against-Christianity science ALWAYS misses one or more of those 4. I see your source for definitions is from NASA, a company that is mostly government funded, whose work is almost never testable, or falsifiable.

Events of the past aren't repeatable, and aren't observable, so there are 2 that are missing from this thread's claims of an ancient earth. That only leaves testable and falsifiable, and since there are claims of correlation in some of the data in the claim of an old earth as RAZD outlined, then AED's (ancient earth Darwinists) can rightfully claim some testability. Falsifiability should be present in most of AED's claims as well, but it usually isn't for one main reason - all the anger and emotion that AED's put forward whenever their war-against-Christianity "science" is questioned. The instant anger that went up with the release of Darwin's Black Box back in the 1990's is one of many examples.

So we have 2 distinct types of science, the kind Dupont does that benefits mankind and is accountable to free markets, and there's the type that AED's and NASA does, science for amusement and politics, because it seldom has nuts-and-bolts benefits for mankind. I'm sure there are several here who will tell me there's a bridge between these 2 types of science - I actually had an AED on another forum long ago tell me that without the knowledge of a multi-billion year old earth, we would have no idea how to purify water. I'm sure there have been countless hundreds of AED'S in government funded labs who have made a case for this type of claim, and I don't have the time or interest to face a gang of AED'S about it.

Science is involved in medicine, pharmaceuticals, electricity, chemicals, and many other things that are proved and provable. It seems those in the 'war-against-Christianity' division of science are starting to forget that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2017 3:22 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2017 6:16 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 536 by Pressie, posted 07-19-2017 10:34 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 537 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2017 11:10 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 889
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 529 of 569 (815116)
07-16-2017 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by RAZD
07-15-2017 4:49 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
marc9000 writes:

Do you believe that humans, at any time in the future, are CAPABLE of understanding the endlessness of space, as one example?

Can you define what quantity of knowledge that is? In order to be able to ascertain what proportion humans will eventually be able to understand, don't you need to know that?

Quantity? What does that mean, lay out every question that there is concerning unresolved questions? One would be where material/matter came from. I realize science has put forward a theory, that 13 billion years ago there was a big bang that arose from an area the size of the head of a pin, and it contained all the material in the universe. Then in the next breath they'll mock Christians for believing in "magic".

I'd like to know how space can be endless. The human mind can't comprehend how it can be, neither can it comprehend how it can't be. If we were to build a spaceship that could travel at 1000 parsecs per hour, and get us to the edge of our galaxy, or to the edge of the "observable universe", what would be there? A big wall with a sign that say's "THE END, TURN BACK NOW!" If so, what's on the other side of that wall? More galaxies? Wouldn't we have to admit that if space is completely endless, that there would have to be an endless number of earths exactly like this one, same number of blades of grass, grains of sand, that this one does? And all the slightest variations, anything we could imagine. One where dogs or cats rule, and humans go around barking and meowing. Or an earth exactly like this one in every way, except that on that one's EvC, Razd would be the YEC, and marc9000 would be the AED?

If that were true, wouldn't there be civilization somewhere that would be advanced enough to come here, with a spaceman who looked just like Bernie Sanders, and started commanding us how to live our lives?

I choose not to believe "endlessness". I believe in the definition that the Bible gives us.

So your question was silly.

There's nothing silly about questioning the wisdom of fitting all of reality into what might be a very limited re-arrangement realm. If there is more than one time dimension, (the belief of 2 or more is basic to all of Christianity) could the AED worldview provide impressive evidence to deny a second time dimension's existence, even though that evidence would actually turn out to be all wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 4:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2017 5:54 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 889
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 530 of 569 (815117)
07-16-2017 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by jar
07-15-2017 5:10 PM


Re: Loses its Gravity Grip?
I understand it is not quite germane to the topic but it is also so amazingly outlandish that I cannot possible not acknowledge it as perhaps the funniest thing a creationist has said here since the days of WillowTree.

So you don't understand the concept of the moon slightly drifting away from earth? You've never heard of a satellite crashing into earth's atmosphere?

Tell me something Christian, do you believe there is more than one time-dimension?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by jar, posted 07-15-2017 5:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by jar, posted 07-16-2017 5:04 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 889
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 531 of 569 (815118)
07-16-2017 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by Minnemooseus
07-15-2017 5:10 PM


Re: One link is to satire site
I suspect the Ken-Ham's-grandfather-riding-a dinosaur allegation might have more to it than we're being told also. But I'm not going to worry about researching it. Ken Ham isn't the only representative of Christianity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-15-2017 5:10 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29142
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 532 of 569 (815125)
07-16-2017 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by marc9000
07-16-2017 3:28 PM


Re: Loses its Gravity Grip?
marc writes:

So you don't understand the concept of the moon slightly drifting away from earth? You've never heard of a satellite crashing into earth's atmosphere?

Of course I understand the moon drifting away from the Earth and also that it has nothing to do with the utterly imbecilic "losing its grip on gravity" I am not part of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

Of course I have heard of satellites crashing into the Earths atmosphere and even seen examples. I am not part of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

marc writes:

Tell me something Christian, do you believe there is more than one time-dimension?

I am aware of "six dimension relativity" which is testable and may actually turn out to be valid. I am not part of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

But none of your utterly inane posts has anything to do with the topic or the fact that the Earth really is old and that the Creation myths have been conclusively shown to be false.

I am not part of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by marc9000, posted 07-16-2017 3:28 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18790
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 533 of 569 (815131)
07-16-2017 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by marc9000
07-16-2017 3:24 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
marc9000 writes:

Do you believe that humans, at any time in the future, are CAPABLE of understanding the endlessness of space, as one example?

Can you define what quantity of knowledge that is? In order to be able to ascertain what proportion humans will eventually be able to understand, don't you need to know that?

Quantity? What does that mean, ...

Oh for goodness sake, you can't even keep track of your own argument. You said:

Message 515: If we were to ask a science guy like Bill Nye what percentage of reality can humans not be capable of understanding versus what we can understand, he'd probably say we can understand...80 to 90% of all of reality. ...

Let's put that in a formula to see the silliness of this statement: what is the proportion of

knowledge humans are capable of learning
knowing all about reality, life, the universe, everything

SO I was asking you to define the denominator ... because you were being silly.

So your question was silly.

There's nothing silly about questioning the wisdom of fitting all of reality into what might be a very limited re-arrangement realm. ...

That wasn't your silly question. Changing goal posts?

I'd like to know how space can be endless. ...

The typical physics description is "finite but unbounded", and neither of those are "endless" - an analogy might help

A Möbius strip is a finite object, but has one side and one edge, topologically it is unbounded, you can travel parallel to the edge without limit, without reaching an end.

A Klein Bottle adds another dimension and no longer has an edge

It is theoretical (although I have a knitted hat in this shape) because of the intersection where it goes through itself. (technically the moebius strip is also theoretical because you can't make one without thickness).

Topologically it's surface is also finite but unbounded. Some people do have endless fun with them ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by marc9000, posted 07-16-2017 3:24 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5904
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


(3)
Message 534 of 569 (815134)
07-16-2017 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 528 by marc9000
07-16-2017 2:58 PM


Another falsehood
Events of the past aren't repeatable, and aren't observable, so there are 2 that are missing from this thread's claims of an ancient earth.

Absolutely false.

Just as one example: radiocarbon dating can be used on anything that was once living, up to about 50,000 years.

That means that, for example, I can date hundreds of marine shells from a particular Indian site. And, in many sites I can date those shells from discrete layers, dating several layers to determine whether they are superimposed, as undisturbed middens should be. And I can do this with hundreds of different sites. My colleagues around the world push this into the hundreds of thousands of sites. This satisfies both the not repeatable and not observable claims made by creationists.

As RAZD has observed at length the same thing can be done with tree rings. Those are items whose age can be independently determined by simple counting. This both calibrates and validates the radiocarbon method.

And, the radiocarbon method by itself disproves both the young earth and global flood during historic times.

If you don't like that, you better come up with something better than the not "repeatable" and "observable" nonsense.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by marc9000, posted 07-16-2017 2:58 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 7:55 PM Coyote has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1685
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(4)
Message 535 of 569 (815166)
07-17-2017 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 520 by marc9000
07-15-2017 12:53 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
marc9000 writes:

Darwin's book "Origin of Species" was written in 1859. All the above dates come shortly after that. Meaning that the interest in an old earth increased greatly with the publication of that book.

You've got it the wrong way round. The naturalists of the time realised that the earth was very, very old. Waaaay before Darwin.

Anyway, marc9000, isn't it amazing that exploration and mining companies were the people and organisations initiating and funding research on how to exactly determine the age of rocks? Seems like it helped them doing what they do best; finding and taking minerals out of the ground and sell those products for a profit (I nearly wrote Prophet)? They use old earth models. Makes normal people think; doesn't it?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by marc9000, posted 07-15-2017 12:53 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 7:57 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1685
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 536 of 569 (815353)
07-19-2017 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by marc9000
07-16-2017 2:58 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
This one is just as funny.

marc9000 writes:

Events of the past aren't repeatable, and aren't observable...

Actually, I didn't need to watch my parents having sex to have me.

DNA does the trick.

Do you have any idea what science is, marc9trillion?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by marc9000, posted 07-16-2017 2:58 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 8:02 PM Pressie has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11540
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 537 of 569 (815356)
07-19-2017 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by marc9000
07-16-2017 2:58 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Events of the past aren't repeatable, and aren't observable,

Riiiight.... that's why nobody has ever been convicted of murder


This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by marc9000, posted 07-16-2017 2:58 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 8:05 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 889
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 538 of 569 (815393)
07-19-2017 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Coyote
07-16-2017 6:16 PM


Re: Another falsehood
marc9000 writes:

Events of the past aren't repeatable, and aren't observable, so there are 2 that are missing from this thread's claims of an ancient earth.

Absolutely false.

So they're "absolutely" repeatable and observable, but not "provable"? Because earlier, you said this;

Coyote writes:

NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS PROVED OR PROVABLE.

Do you think I could show you that companies like DuPont, who do real science, really do scientific things that are provable?

Just as one example: radiocarbon dating can be used on anything that was once living, up to about 50,000 years.

That means that, for example, I can date hundreds of marine shells from a particular Indian site. And, in many sites I can date those shells from discrete layers, dating several layers to determine whether they are superimposed, as undisturbed middens should be. And I can do this with hundreds of different sites. My colleagues around the world push this into the hundreds of thousands of sites. This satisfies both the not repeatable and not observable claims made by creationists.

Are they provable? Is your previous all caps statement actually false?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2017 6:16 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2017 8:06 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 549 by JonF, posted 07-20-2017 10:30 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 550 by ringo, posted 07-20-2017 12:08 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 889
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 539 of 569 (815394)
07-19-2017 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by Pressie
07-17-2017 5:04 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Anyway, marc9000, isn't it amazing that exploration and mining companies were the people and organisations initiating and funding research on how to exactly determine the age of rocks? Seems like it helped them doing what they do best; finding and taking minerals out of the ground and sell those products for a profit (I nearly wrote Prophet)? They use old earth models. Makes normal people think; doesn't it?

Yes, if we didn't have atheism, we would have no idea how to dig things out of the ground and use them. I've heard it all before.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by Pressie, posted 07-17-2017 5:04 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 889
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 540 of 569 (815395)
07-19-2017 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by Pressie
07-19-2017 10:34 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Actually, I didn't need to watch my parents having sex to have me. DNA does the trick.

There's no disagreement between YEC's and AED's on how life is pro-created. But there is disagreement on between them on how old the earth is, what the supernatural is capable of if it isn't bound by one time and three space dimensions.

Do you have any idea what science is, marc9trillion?

I'm learning. I see that;

Coyote writes:

NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS PROVED OR PROVABLE.

Do you agree with that statement? If you do, I'd like to show you a few things DuPont does - I might have the mistaken idea that DuPont does science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Pressie, posted 07-19-2017 10:34 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by Pressie, posted 07-21-2017 6:46 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 552 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2017 7:05 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
333435
36
3738Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017