Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2017 10:23 PM
377 online now:
dwise1, Faith, herebedragons, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 373 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,787 Year: 21,393/21,208 Month: 1,826/2,326 Week: 281/881 Day: 106/97 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
34353637
38
39Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 556 of 578 (815616)
07-21-2017 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by Pressie
07-21-2017 6:46 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
It would help you if you knew the basics about basic science before trying to "prove" that science is wrong...

I don't try to prove science is wrong. I just sometimes question the promotion of certain theoretical kinds of science which only exist to promote the atheist worldview, and liberal politics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Pressie, posted 07-21-2017 6:46 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by edge, posted 07-21-2017 11:26 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 562 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2017 6:16 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 572 by Pressie, posted 07-24-2017 6:39 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 557 of 578 (815631)
07-21-2017 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by marc9000
07-21-2017 7:52 PM


Re: Another falsehood
It's not? With the slogan of "The Miracles of Science"

Sure, the application of science, also known as engineering.

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

Dupont science is just as atheistic as any kind of real science.

One cannot do science in a field of gods. It must be atheistic in the sense that it has nothing to do with a supernatural agent who could muck things up at will.

(quote snipped)

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


You will notice that they talk about the 'application of science', just as I did.

And why would they be concerned about the age of the earth? If they were developing models for resource development, it might be important. After that it becomes mining and oil extraction.

And who is agonizing over it? I mean, besides YECs?

Aren't you the least bit curious about the earth and the universe?

Some more from that link;

(snip quote)

(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?


And, once again they stress the development of markets, value-added solutions, etc. Science and technology are development to them. The business is selling goods.

Consequently, they are not trying to 'prove' anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 7:52 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by marc9000, posted 07-23-2017 3:47 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 558 of 578 (815633)
07-21-2017 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 553 by marc9000
07-21-2017 7:40 PM


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

Yes, but how do you know that God did not step in an skew the results? Maybe today he wanted to see success, but how about tomorrow? Ah, perhaps you are a uniformitarian?

So, Dupont does not account for God in their testing. Or maybe they use mystical incantations?

Does that mean that they are all atheists?

Hey, you might have painted your house with the devil's own stain.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 7:40 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 559 of 578 (815635)
07-21-2017 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by marc9000
07-21-2017 8:05 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
I don't try to prove science is wrong. I just sometimes question the promotion of certain theoretical kinds of science which only exist to promote the atheist worldview, and liberal politics.

You honestly think that theoretical science always has an agenda? And yet, you give professional creationists a pass?

Why would geology advance liberal politics or atheism?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 8:05 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by marc9000, posted 07-23-2017 3:53 PM edge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18867
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 560 of 578 (815641)
07-22-2017 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by marc9000
07-21-2017 7:52 PM


Re: Another falsehood
"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.

I also don't see anything there about them proving science, rather what I see is them applying what has been learned from science to make products -- that's chemical engineering not science.

Try again.

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 554 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 7:52 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18867
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 561 of 578 (815642)
07-22-2017 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 555 by marc9000
07-21-2017 8:02 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Often after starting with a pre-determined conclusion, heavily influenced by a worldview.

Can you give us an example of such a "pre-determined conclusion?"

If it happens "Often" then you must have loads of examples, so trot one out.

Except when the creationist conception considers the possibility of another time dimension. ...

In other words, magic time, miracle time, ... god-did-it time. Can you show how such creationist extra time dimension concept explains the amounts of Protactinium and Thorium in the solid calcite vein? Here it is again:

quote:
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.


How would a different/extra time dimension solve this problem for YECies? Inquiring minds want to know.

The earth is really old. Get used to it.

I don't need to get used to it, I live in the present. ...

So it really makes no real difference to your life if the earth is really old. You could accept an old earth and have no effect on your behavior or beliefs.

... 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?

LOL. If it doesn't match your world view it must be a world wide conspiracy for mind control. Because liberal ...

Curiously facts are neither liberal or conservative, they are just evidence of reality.

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 555 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 8:02 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by marc9000, posted 07-23-2017 4:05 PM RAZD has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4983
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 562 of 578 (815643)
07-22-2017 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 556 by marc9000
07-21-2017 8:05 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
This evolution=atheism meme that you guys keep churning out is total crap.

Can you defend it?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 8:05 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by marc9000, posted 07-23-2017 4:07 PM Tangle has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 563 of 578 (815719)
07-23-2017 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by edge
07-21-2017 11:15 PM


Re: Another falsehood
marc9000 writes:

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

Sure, the application of science, also known as engineering.

But Dupont doesn't say "The Miracles of Engineering".

Science is a subject. Just like the study of a language, or history, or mathematics, or many other things. All those subjects can and do provide knowledge that science can't provide. Science has long been controlled by people who choose to use it as a weapon against religion. The only way they can successfully do that is by taking it beyond its bounds, taking where it interferes with and conflicts with knowledge of other subjects.

Dupont science is just as atheistic as any kind of real science.

Atheism declares there is no God. Dupont's use of science doesn't declare that at all. "Secular" best describes what they do. Secular is what science is supposed to be. And it should STOP when it gets near other subjects. But it long ago quit doing that. Why? Could it be power and money?

One cannot do science in a field of gods. It must be atheistic in the sense that it has nothing to do with a supernatural agent who could muck things up at will.

But it HAS something to do with a supernatural agent when it mocks it like you just did, or declares it doesn't exist, or is insignificant.

And who is agonizing over it? I mean, besides YECs?

It was an AED who started this thread, and spent many hours in this thread and others trying to make a convincing argument for it. It's safe to say that AED's have spent much more time trying to convince as many people as possible that the earth is old than have YEC's tried to show the earth is young. The reason is simple, Darwinist's HAVE to have an old earth, the earth's age isn't as critical to YEC's. It is possible that the earth is old, yet has not been in its current perfect orbit around the sun for nearly that long. Any scenario like that can fit with YEC, it can't fit with AED. That's the reason for the AED agonizing, it requires near perfection in the earth's climate for millions of years.

Aren't you the least bit curious about the earth and the universe?

Yes, I did a little "model building" here years ago. I'm not going to search for it, but the AED's here had a fit, I remember that. I showed how if the earth was scaled down to the size of a grain of sand, located in New York City, one light-year away would be about as far as Atlanta Georgia. The nearest star to earth, about 4 light-years away, would be well out over the Pacific ocean from NY City. We can do some testing and falsifying concerning the activities of our own solar system, but beyond that, the distances are too great for it to be science. It's fun to guess about what might be going on, but guessing is all it is.

And, once again they stress the development of markets, value-added solutions, etc. Science and technology are development to them. The business is selling goods.

Consequently, they are not trying to 'prove' anything.

But there is a big difference in what they do versus atheist philosophy like how old the earth might be, or how all of reality can be explained with only rearrangement processes.

Today's scientific community is trying to seamlessly combine 2 distinctively different processes in science, one here-and-now materials-science, versus atheist philosophy. That way when anything they propose, including liberal politics, is questioned by anyone whose knowledge is in subjects other than science, those questioners can then be accused of being "anti science".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by edge, posted 07-21-2017 11:15 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by edge, posted 07-23-2017 7:09 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 564 of 578 (815721)
07-23-2017 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by edge
07-21-2017 11:26 PM


marc9000 writes:

I don't try to prove science is wrong. I just sometimes question the promotion of certain theoretical kinds of science which only exist to promote the atheist worldview, and liberal politics.

You honestly think that theoretical science always has an agenda?

I used the word "sometimes" - why did you pull the word "always" out of thin air?

And yet, you give professional creationists a pass?

I analyze what they do and propose with other subjects, like history, and what the Holy Bible actually says.

Why would geology advance liberal politics or atheism?

Today's scientific community uses "science" to advance the global warming hoax, the biggest money and power grabbing political farce in world history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by edge, posted 07-21-2017 11:26 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2017 6:31 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 565 of 578 (815725)
07-23-2017 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by RAZD
07-22-2017 6:02 AM


Can you give us an example of such a "pre-determined conclusion?"

That the earth is old, that Darwinism is true, that there is no creator, that no one has been endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights if no creator exists.

In other words, magic time, miracle time, ... god-did-it time.

Yes, not big-bang time.

How would a different/extra time dimension solve this problem for YECies? Inquiring minds want to know.

The problem is only yours, in trying to fit all of reality into human understanding.

So it really makes no real difference to your life if the earth is really old. You could accept an old earth and have no effect on your behavior or beliefs.

Yes I could. But it's one of the first, best starting points of AED's to convince future generations that if Genesis is wrong, then maybe everything else in the Bible is wrong too.

LOL. If it doesn't match your world view it must be a world wide conspiracy for mind control. Because liberal ...

Similar to the way "Darwin's Black Box" didn't match your worldview? It was a world wide conspiracy for mind control against actual science, wasn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2017 6:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by vimesey, posted 07-24-2017 6:23 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 573 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2017 7:31 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 574 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2017 8:01 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 566 of 578 (815726)
07-23-2017 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by Tangle
07-22-2017 6:16 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
This evolution=atheism meme that you guys keep churning out is total crap.

Can you defend it?

Oh yes I'm so embarrassed. How could anyone see any similarities between evolution and atheism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2017 6:16 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2017 4:24 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 568 by Tangle, posted 07-23-2017 4:40 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6121
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 567 of 578 (815729)
07-23-2017 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 566 by marc9000
07-23-2017 4:07 PM


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

quote:
How could anyone see any similarities between evolution and atheism?

So all those religious folk who put forward evolution as the only scientific explanation to explain the diversification of life on earth aren't really religious at all but are atheists?

Pope John Paul II was an atheist? Pope Pius XII was an atheist? Because both of them directly stated that the official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is the only explanation we have to explain the diversity of life on earth.

Now, the Catholic position is also that evolution explains the origin of the body but not the mind, but that's quibbling. The fact remains that the official position of one of the largest religious sects on the planet is that evolution is the only answer we have.

Yeah, but them's Catholics...they're the devil incarnate, if we're to believe Faith. What about the Anglicans? They also state that evolution is the only answer we have.

Methodists, too.

And Judaism (at least the Reform, Conservative, and Reconstrucionists).

For crying out loud, the co-discoverer of the concept of evolution by natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, believed in god.

And considering that there is a current thread in this very forum that quotes Dobzhansky ("Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"), it is quite ironic that you're insisting that evolution = atheism since he believes in god.

And he's Orthodox Christian.

So through a simple act of observation, we trivially show your claim to be false.

The only reason to insist that evolution = atheism is if you assume that god, a being so powerful as to create the entire universe, is incapable of using evolution.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by marc9000, posted 07-23-2017 4:07 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4983
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 568 of 578 (815731)
07-23-2017 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 566 by marc9000
07-23-2017 4:07 PM


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

Oh yes I'm so embarrassed. How could anyone see any similarities between evolution and atheism?

So defend your position or shut the fuck up about it - it's a totally dumb stance, evolution is not atheism.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by marc9000, posted 07-23-2017 4:07 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 569 of 578 (815734)
07-23-2017 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by marc9000
07-23-2017 3:47 PM


Re: Another falsehood
But Dupont doesn't say "The Miracles of Engineering".

No, but to them, the science is done. They are engineers. The bring us the rewards of science.

Science is a subject. Just like the study of a language, or history, or mathematics, or many other things. All those subjects can and do provide knowledge that science can't provide. Science has long been controlled by people who choose to use it as a weapon against religion. The only way they can successfully do that is by taking it beyond its bounds, taking where it interferes with and conflicts with knowledge of other subjects.

Oh, don't play the persecution card again.

Maybe it is religion that is interfering with us learning about the natural world.

Atheism declares there is no God.

More accurately, atheism declares that no god is necessary.

Dupont's use of science doesn't declare that at all. "Secular" best describes what they do. Secular is what science is supposed to be. And it should STOP when it gets near other subjects.

Science is secular. If you see that as a threat, we cannot help you.

Maybe religion should stop when it gets into discussions of the origin of the universe.

But it long ago quit doing that. Why? Could it be power and money?

I am sorry that science is too hard for YECs to do.

Darwin had a hard time also, but he realized that he just had to keep collecting evidence.

Why can't YECs figure that out?

It was an AED who started this thread, and spent many hours in this thread and others trying to make a convincing argument for it. It's safe to say that AED's have spent much more time trying to convince as many people as possible that the earth is old than have YEC's tried to show the earth is young.

Well, then, what are you doing here? Get back to the lab and find more evidence.

The reason is simple, Darwinist's HAVE to have an old earth, the earth's age isn't as critical to YEC's.

THen why are you so exercised about it?

Hey, all you need is evidence and then you got something.

Any scenario like that can fit with YEC, it can't fit with AED. That's the reason for the AED agonizing, it requires near perfection in the earth's climate for millions of years.

I'm not sure how you get that. Climate has been changing for millions of years.

What is 'perfect climate' by the way?

Yes, I did a little "model building" here years ago. I'm not going to search for it, but the AED's here had a fit, I remember that. I showed how if the earth was scaled down to the size of a grain of sand, located in New York City, one light-year away would be about as far as Atlanta Georgia. The nearest star to earth, about 4 light-years away, would be well out over the Pacific ocean from NY City. We can do some testing and falsifying concerning the activities of our own solar system, but beyond that, the distances are too great for it to be science. It's fun to guess about what might be going on, but guessing is all it is.

What makes distances 'too great for science'? Were the oceans 'too big' at one time? What happened there?

Do you realize that your exercise didn't really science? It was an explanation of scale. Do you think that you actually expanded the knowledge base of the human species?

But there is a big difference in what they do versus atheist philosophy like how old the earth might be, or how all of reality can be explained with only rearrangement processes.

Then how do we extend the frontier of knowledge if we don't look for ways to test the frontier?

Today's scientific community is trying to seamlessly combine 2 distinctively different processes in science, one here-and-now materials-science, versus atheist philosophy.

There are a lot of Christian scientists out there who are going to be shocked that they are accomplishing atheist ends.

I suggest you think about that again.

That way when anything they propose, including liberal politics, is questioned by anyone whose knowledge is in subjects other than science, those questioners can then be accused of being "anti science".

Maybe it is you who is conflating science with religion.

Perhaps you are projecting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by marc9000, posted 07-23-2017 3:47 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(3)
Message 570 of 578 (815754)
07-24-2017 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 565 by marc9000
07-23-2017 4:05 PM


The problem is only yours, in trying to fit all of reality into human understanding.

Incorrect. We are seeking to expand human understanding, to try to encompass all of reality. That is the very essence of science - it is not predetermined.

It is you who is trying to fit reality into your beliefs.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by marc9000, posted 07-23-2017 4:05 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
34353637
38
39Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017