Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-24-2017 7:21 AM
377 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 376 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,131 Year: 25,737/21,208 Month: 1,364/2,338 Week: 121/364 Day: 9/63 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
343536
37
3839Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 541 of 578 (815396)
07-19-2017 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2017 11:10 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Riiiight.... that's why nobody has ever been convicted of murder.

I don't believe court systems absolutely prove things, they just come to the best conclusion they can based on the information they have. Worldviews aren't involved to the same extent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2017 11:10 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2017 8:45 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 548 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2017 9:28 AM marc9000 has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6016
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 542 of 578 (815397)
07-19-2017 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 538 by marc9000
07-19-2017 7:55 PM


Re: Another falsehood
Specific events in the past can usually be examined using a variety of techniques. In the example I gave we can date many pieces of shell and establish the age of a particular site. If somebody disagrees they can date more shells or other materials and see if they get different results.

And please stop using "proof" and "prove." As I posted before, those are not the criteria of science. Your use of those terms exposes you as a creationist and shows your lack of knowledge of the scientific method.


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 538 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 7:55 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 8:41 PM Coyote has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 543 of 578 (815398)
07-19-2017 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 542 by Coyote
07-19-2017 8:06 PM


Re: Another falsehood
Does DuPont use the scientific method? Does DuPont prove things? Was your statement wrong?

Do you think I can show you scientific things that DuPont proves?

Edited by marc9000, : Took out trollish sentence.

Edited by marc9000, : Added one more question


This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2017 8:06 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2017 8:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 545 by jar, posted 07-19-2017 9:25 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6016
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 544 of 578 (815399)
07-19-2017 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by marc9000
07-19-2017 8:41 PM


Re: Another falsehood
Don't be a troll, its very unbecoming.

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 543 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 8:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29473
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 545 of 578 (815400)
07-19-2017 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by marc9000
07-19-2017 8:41 PM


Re: Another falsehood
marc writes:

Does DuPont use the scientific method? Does DuPont prove things? Was your statement wrong?

Do you think I can show you scientific things that DuPont proves?

Yes DuPont uses the scientific method often but does not use the scientific method to prove things.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 8:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by edge, posted 07-20-2017 9:16 AM jar has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11774
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 546 of 578 (815436)
07-20-2017 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by marc9000
07-19-2017 8:05 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
I don't believe court systems absolutely prove things,

Nobody absolutely proves things.

they just come to the best conclusion they can based on the information they have.

You mean like science?

Worldviews aren't involved to the same extent.

What does worldviews have to do with it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 8:05 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 553 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 7:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 547 of 578 (815441)
07-20-2017 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 545 by jar
07-19-2017 9:25 PM


Re: Another falsehood
Yes DuPont uses the scientific method often but does not use the scientific method to prove things.

Exactly. Dupont is not in the business to 'do science'.

At some point, it becomes engineering. In this case, chemical engineering.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by jar, posted 07-19-2017 9:25 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 7:52 PM edge has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19100
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 548 of 578 (815442)
07-20-2017 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by marc9000
07-19-2017 8:05 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
The irony ... it burns ...

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

I don't believe court systems absolutely prove things, they just come to the best conclusion they can based on the information they have. Worldviews aren't involved to the same extent.

You just described science ... it doesn't "absolutely prove things," it just comes to the best conclusion it can based on the information it has.

And it does reach conclusions that are demonstrably valid beyond reasonable doubt, such as that the earth is very, very, very old, based on even more evidence than is posted in this thread. Conclusions we can have high confidence in being valid because of the preponderance of evidence.

Especially when those conclusions are backed up by several different systems of investigation, using different methodologies, but reaching the same conclusions.

Tree rings and lake and marine varves agreeing to remarkable degree of precision and accuracy not just on age but on 14C content and then agreeing with ice cores not just on volcanic events but on climate variations.

Explaining results as errors in one system with some made up cockamamie creationist conception does not explain the consilience with the same results from other systems, and explaining results as errors in another system with some other made up cockamamie creationist conception does not explain the consilience with the same results from other systems, and this inability to explain the congruence and consilience in results is why cockamamie creationist conceptions have failed to explain reality in a way that incorporates ALL the objective empirical facts/evidence. ...

... while science consistently shows an old age for the earth that is beyond reasonable doubt.

Why does the wiggle pattern of variation of 14C with age match the wiggle pattern of variation of 10Be in ice layers for the same ages if they are not both accurate and precise records of the cosmogenic climate that creates both 14C and 10Be in the atmosphere at different ages?

Why does the pattern of variation of δ18O and δ13C in ice layers match the pattern of variation of δ18O and δ13C in a calcite flow in a cavern in Nevada for the same age, when one is measured by ice layers and the other is measured by two independent radiometric methods ("Thorium-230 dates were independently confirmed by non-USGS investigators using Protactinium-231.") ... if they are not due to the same actual age of the earth?

quote:
Using the half-lives of thorium-230 (75,380 years) and protactinium-231 (32,760 years), we can now draw the exponential curves for these isotopes (with % on the y-axis and time in k-yrs on the x axis, thorium in blue and protactinium in red):

This means we have a series of data with three different pieces of information: calcite layer age, Thorium-230 content and Protactinium-231 content. We also note that Thorium-230 has a half-life of 75,380 years, while Protactinium-231 has a half-life of 32,760 years - less than half the half-life of Thorium-230. This means that layer by layer the ratio of Thorium-230 to Protactinium-231 is different:

   Age   THr=THf/THo PAr=PAf/PAo  THr/PAr
------------------------------------------
75,380 0.5000 0.2029 2.46
150,760 0.2500 0.0412 6.07
226,140 0.1250 0.0084 14.96
301,520 0.0625 0.0017 36.86
376,900 0.0313 0.0003 90.82
452,280 0.0156 0.0001 223.77
527,660 0.0078 0.00001 551.35

So for these dates to be invalid there would have to be a mechanism that can layer by layer preferentially change the ratio of these two {elements\isotopes} within the solid calcite vein.

Based on the ages determined from the radioactive decay of thorium and protactinium the values for δ18O and δ13C values were tabulated and these climate patterns were compared to those of the ice cores. The result was that they were "highly correlated" with climatological data from the Vostok ice core data, which "matches almost perfectly" the climatological data from the Greenland ice core data. Thus the climate correlation shows that the ages determined by the radioactive decay match the ages determined from counting the layers of ice in these cores - highly correlated between two climate measures, two radioactive age measures, two ice cores.


(From Message 9 in this thread).

The simplest explanation is that these congruent, correlating consiliences are due to actual age measurements, made by hard working scientists using a variety of methods that have each and all been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be accurate and precise.

The other simple explanation is that it was all created as a joke to delude people and with the intent to lead them astray. Loki comes to mind ...

The earth is really old. Get used to it.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 541 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 8:05 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 555 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 8:02 PM RAZD has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3976
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 549 of 578 (815453)
07-20-2017 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by marc9000
07-19-2017 7:55 PM


Re: Another falsehood
Are they provable?

No.

They can be, and are, established as true far beyond reasonable doubt. But the possibility of other explanations exists. E.g. the entire Universe could have been created last Thursday with a full complement of fake history and memories and whatever is required to make that creation undetectable. Or invisible magic space walruses could be affecting the results for their amusement. Go ahed, prove those impossible.

There's an infinite number of other possibilities, none of which are worth serious consideration. But the existence of those possibilities requires that logically we cannot claim absolute proof such as we have in mathematics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 7:55 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13745
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 550 of 578 (815477)
07-20-2017 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 538 by marc9000
07-19-2017 7:55 PM


Re: Another falsehood
marc9000 writes:

So they're "absolutely" repeatable and observable, but not "provable"?


Before you try to criticize science, you should learn what some of the terminology means.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 7:55 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1809
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 551 of 578 (815538)
07-21-2017 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 540 by marc9000
07-19-2017 8:02 PM


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

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


me writes:

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?


marc9000 writes:

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.


You scored an own goal. Events of the past don’t have to be repeated to be scientific. In science the evidence provided must be observable and the experiments to confirm or deny hypotheses must be repeatable.

It would help you if you knew the basics about basic science before trying to "prove" that science is wrong...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 8:02 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 556 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 8:05 PM Pressie has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19100
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 552 of 578 (815541)
07-21-2017 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 540 by marc9000
07-19-2017 8:02 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
... But there is disagreement on between them on how old the earth is, ...

Is that disagreement based on science or fantasy? Are you going to reply to Message 548 which shows that the earth is older than fantasy YECie belief/opinion/delusion ...

... what the supernatural is capable of if it isn't bound by one time and three space dimensions.

Or do you go with the alternative?

quote:
Message 548: The simplest explanation is that these congruent, correlating consiliences are due to actual age measurements, made by hard working scientists using a variety of methods that have each and all been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be accurate and precise.

The other simple explanation is that it was all created as a joke to delude people and with the intent to lead them astray. Loki comes to mind ...

The earth is really old. Get used to it.


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 540 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 8:02 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 553 of 578 (815612)
07-21-2017 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2017 8:45 AM


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

I don't believe court systems absolutely prove things,

Nobody absolutely proves things.

In 'pure science', things are proved. If DuPont uses pure science to determine to try a new chemical formula in one of its paint products to improve its performance, and it's performance is observed to be improved, then that scientific experiment was proven.

marc9000 writes:

they just come to the best conclusion they can based on the information they have.

You mean like science?

Not pure science. Just theoretical science, often atheistic science.

marc9000 writes:

Worldviews aren't involved to the same extent.

What does worldviews have to do with it?

EVERYTHING. What to study, how thorough to study it, what desired conclusions have already been reached, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2017 8:45 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by edge, posted 07-21-2017 11:20 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 554 of 578 (815613)
07-21-2017 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by edge
07-20-2017 9:16 AM


Re: Another falsehood
jar writes:

Yes DuPont uses the scientific method often but does not use the scientific method to prove things.

Exactly. Dupont is not in the business to 'do science'.

It's not? With the slogan of "The Miracles of Science"?

At some point, it becomes engineering. In this case, chemical engineering.

"At some point", within DuPont's many methods, including science. (pure science) Not the atheist-promoting kind.

quote:
DuPont’s vision has always been to apply world-class science to enable a better, safer, and healthier life for people everywhere. Today, we are helping our customers find solutions to some of the world’s most pressing needs, by enabling safer, more nutritious food; creating high-performance, cost effective and energy efficient materials; and increasingly delivering renewably sourced bio-based materials and fuels. All of our business call upon our world-class science and technology, a deep understanding of commercial value chains and market knowledge to deliver value-added solutions. This total system of innovation continually renews our portfolio, creates new product lines, and transforms markets to deliver results for our customers, employees and shareholders. 

http://www.dupont.com/...science/science-and-technology.html

You'll notice there was nothing there about wasting a lot of time and effort in agonizing over the age of the earth.

Some more from that link;

quote:
Our world class science draws on a rich mix of deep scientific disciplines to address significant market opportunities both within and across our businesses.  Broadly speaking, these disciplines fall under chemistry, materials science, biology, and engineering. DuPont science includes deep, world-class capabilities and sub-disciplines such as organic chemistry, polymer chemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, and process engineering that are frequently brought together within and across businesses to advance new technologies and create valuable new outcomes for our customers.

(bolded mine) If you and others here don't think DuPont is in the business to do science, shouldn't the scientific community sue them for claiming they do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by edge, posted 07-20-2017 9:16 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by edge, posted 07-21-2017 11:15 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 560 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2017 5:48 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 555 of 578 (815615)
07-21-2017 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 548 by RAZD
07-20-2017 9:28 AM


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

I don't believe court systems absolutely prove things, they just come to the best conclusion they can based on the information they have. Worldviews aren't involved to the same extent.

You just described science ... it doesn't "absolutely prove things," it just comes to the best conclusion it can based on the information it has.

Often after starting with a pre-determined conclusion, heavily influenced by a worldview.

Explaining results as errors in one system with some made up cockamamie creationist conception does not explain the consilience with the same results from other systems, and explaining results as errors in another system with some other made up cockamamie creationist conception does not explain the consilience with the same results from other systems, and this inability to explain the congruence and consilience in results is why cockamamie creationist conceptions have failed to explain reality in a way that incorporates ALL the objective empirical facts/evidence. ...

Except when the creationist conception considers the possibility of another time dimension. Something the human mind can't comprehend. And as I alluded to earlier, if we try to mistakenly jam-pack all of reality into ONLY what we can understand, the possibilities of going off on a wrong tangent and having it quickly snowball into a whole lot of wrongs is understood by those who don't think humans are perfect, who don't think humans are gods.

The earth is really old. Get used to it.

I don't need to get used to it, I live in the present. The only reason you would suggest that I get used to it is to make it easier for me to accept future liberal political commands that are associated with its "knowledge". That's what the scientific community's brand of science is all about, isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 548 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2017 9:28 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2017 6:02 AM marc9000 has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
343536
37
3839Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017