Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8801 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2017 5:12 AM
336 online now:
frako, PaulK (2 members, 334 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,604 Year: 27,210/21,208 Month: 1,123/1,714 Week: 331/525 Day: 6/67 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
41424344
45
46Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
starman
Inactive Member


Message 661 of 677 (823389)
11-09-2017 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 655 by Tangle
11-09-2017 3:03 PM


Let us guess, you would fight a real good fight if it wasn't beneath you to step in the ring. Sure.

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Tangle, posted 11-09-2017 3:03 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29603
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 662 of 677 (823396)
11-09-2017 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 657 by starman
11-09-2017 4:08 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

So what? Obviously some sort of reaction happened. The missing isotopes you say were once there are needed in a same state reaction. The magic dunks and resurfacing is needed. Etc. You have no prof for any of it you just need it to be so.

Too funny. Listen, do you have a learning disability? Do you need to get a grown up to read the responses to you?

starman writes:

The missing isotopes you say were once there are needed in a same state reaction.

There are no missing isotopes. The fact that there are the same waste products as a modern reactor creates show it was a same state reaction.

We have the evidence, once again we win.

There was no magic dunks and resurfacing.

Once again, we have the evidence and so we win.

It really is so simply but thank you for playing and better luck next time.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 657 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 4:08 PM starman has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 663 of 677 (823424)
11-10-2017 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 659 by starman
11-09-2017 4:10 PM


Re: Starman fails again to address the issues or provide evidence. Fail #36
Absurdly false. You have NO idea what a ring grown in the former nature would/should look like. ...

Another silly absurd assertion. You have NO evidence that there was a former nature -- it's fantasy.

What you have claimed -- with NO evidence to support it -- is that rings grown in a couple days would look like annual rings. They don't:

Tree growth slows down but doesn't stop over several days period, tree growth does stop at annual points due to climate ecology.

The difference between the double ring shown and the annual ring shown demonstrates this. All you would get would be a series of double rings without the precise character of an annual ring.

And you would need a transition which would show up. It doesn't.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : st


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 659 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 4:10 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 667 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 664 of 677 (823425)
11-10-2017 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 660 by starman
11-09-2017 4:12 PM


Re: Oklo and Uranium Halos show an Old Earth
Summary written? What post? Pony up.

LINK

... as was provided in Message 654 that you replied to with this silly post.

song an dance indeed.

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 660 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 4:12 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 670 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:05 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13864
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 665 of 677 (823433)
11-10-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 647 by starman
11-09-2017 12:38 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

Reality is not constrained to under your nose or your back yard actually. Reality includes the future and past....


That's what we've been telling you. You need to LOOK at reality, not just prattle that reality was different in the past.

starman writes:

... not just the current nature on earth!


Again, if you want to claim that the "current nature" is different from the "past nature", you have to have evidence. Show us some evidence. You can claim that pigs could fly in the past but you need evidence to back up your claim. Unfortunately for you, all of the evidence we have shows that the "past nature" of the earth was the same as the "current nature".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:38 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 669 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:01 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13864
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 666 of 677 (823434)
11-10-2017 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 658 by starman
11-09-2017 4:09 PM


starman writes:

Rocks your world when someone doesn't believe your fables eh?


Look again. Creationist nonsense has been kicked out of the schools time and time again. It's YOUR world that is being rocked.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 4:09 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 668 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:01 PM ringo has responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 667 of 677 (823444)
11-10-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 663 by RAZD
11-10-2017 7:22 AM


Re: Starman fails again to address the issues or provide evidence. Fail #36
False, you have no idea what rings grown fast in the forner nature would or should look like! Your attempted point is that if the nature was the same, THEN fast grown rings would look a certain way.

You guys are not here to debate but to preach!


My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 663 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2017 7:22 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 668 of 677 (823445)
11-10-2017 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 666 by ringo
11-10-2017 10:54 AM


You are not here to debate but to air hatred of God and Christians.

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by ringo, posted 11-10-2017 10:54 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by ringo, posted 11-10-2017 12:08 PM starman has responded
 Message 676 by Phat, posted 11-12-2017 1:58 PM starman has not yet responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 669 of 677 (823446)
11-10-2017 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 665 by ringo
11-10-2017 10:50 AM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
Either try to evidence your claimed nature in the past or you may not use it in models. Period. Evermore.

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by ringo, posted 11-10-2017 10:50 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 672 by ringo, posted 11-10-2017 12:10 PM starman has not yet responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 670 of 677 (823447)
11-10-2017 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 664 by RAZD
11-10-2017 7:37 AM


Re: Oklo and Uranium Halos show an Old Earth
I see something about a short lived isotope within rocks. Is your attempted point that there had to be decay because something was in a rock? Be clear. You see, when forces and laws come into being, atoms obey those forces wherever they are, I would think. If our present nature came to exist after the stuff was in a rock, explain why the new forces would not act on on that stuff anyhow?

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2017 7:37 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13864
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 671 of 677 (823450)
11-10-2017 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 668 by starman
11-10-2017 12:01 PM


starman writes:

You are not here to debate but to air hatred of God and Christians.


Almost everybody I know is a Christian. I don't hate them.

If you want to discuss Christianity or the Bible, we have threads for that. You're clearly out of your depth in the science threads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:01 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:16 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13864
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 672 of 677 (823451)
11-10-2017 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 669 by starman
11-10-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

Either try to evidence your claimed nature in the past or you may not use it in models.


You're just repeating yourself. Try learning how science works before making a fool of yourself in the science forums.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 669 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:01 PM starman has not yet responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 673 of 677 (823454)
11-10-2017 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by ringo
11-10-2017 12:08 PM


To anyone having some actual point of discussion or debate....I will check my blog.

I am suspending EVC from my posts for a few weeks or maybe forever, we'll see.

end transmission


My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by ringo, posted 11-10-2017 12:08 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2017 2:01 PM starman has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 674 of 677 (823460)
11-10-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 658 by starman
11-09-2017 4:09 PM


FAIL 37
Rocks your world when someone doesn't believe your fables eh?

Calling science and objective empirical evidence fables doesn't make it so, rather it exposes a petulant desperate ignorance on the part of the poster -- he must make science seem like his vapid religious beliefs or else his world crumbles.

Unfortunately -- for him -- reality is unaffected by his absurd fantasy, and we can only call it fantasy as there is no support anywhere else (it's only in his mind).

In this fantasy world pink unicorns exist and they poop pure gold. He can't show this is not so.

In this fantasy world pigs fly, as Ringo mentioned, and their droppings are manna. He can't show that this is not so.

In this fantasy world the earth is the center of the solar system and the solar system is the center of the universe. He cannot show that even this is not so.

etc

etc

etc

Because the problem when you retreat into a fantasy world to maintain beliefs that are falsified in the real world/universe nothing in known, everything is illusion ... even existence.

Including those beliefs you thought you were protecting -- without support you have nothing.

Rocks your world when someone doesn't believe your fables eh?

Neutrinos interacting with detectors deep in underground caverns make more of a ripple than silly fantasy beliefs.

So sorry, no. Nothing you have said rises to any kind of challenge to science.

FAIL #37

Delusion is delusion.

Ignorance is ignorance.

We can talk about cognitive dissonance

and we can talk about the Dunning Kruger Effect

If we were interested in evaluating your abilities and knowledge ...

... but we aren't.

We just use you as a tool to explain science to the other readers of these threads and to show by example how much more complete and integrated and interactive science is compared to creationism in general and starman fantasy delusions in particular.

So thank you for the opportunities you provide to expose the empty pathetic claims so that we can teach people the pitfalls of such delusions while science offers a consistent view of the world.

For example, you claim your imaginary flood occurred at the KT boundary, which means that your fantasy before time has to extend passed this boundary ... when does it end? Yesterday? You can't show it doesn't.

Because this event is marked by an iridium layer around the world, marking a unique and very distinctive point in time even with relative dating, and this means all the counting layers of dendrochronology, varves, ice and calcite, etc. ... ALL occurred AFTER this point in time.

And it means you throw away the usual creationist nonsense of things being different before the imaginary flood, ... and thus you have NO mechanism to explain how it transitions from "before" time to present time.

You are in an axe fight without an axe, and behave just like Monty Python's Black Knight ...

Entertaining at first, but then it gets boring from the repetition with no additional value.

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 658 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 4:09 PM starman has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 675 of 677 (823466)
11-10-2017 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 673 by starman
11-10-2017 12:16 PM


Fails 38, 39 and 40 ... consistent failure: good cause for suspensions.
To anyone having some actual point of discussion or debate....I will check my blog.

I am suspending EVC from my posts for a few weeks or maybe forever, we'll see.

end transmission

The old claim victory and run away from the overwhelming evidence that your assertions have no value. The inevitable result of having such a poor argument that you have no evidence to support it and are reduced to just repeating yourself ad nauseum.

Meltdown fail #38 ...

Message 667: False, you have no idea what rings grown fast in the forner nature would or should look like! Your attempted point is that if the nature was the same, THEN fast grown rings would look a certain way.

... and now you are reduced to claiming that every bit of evidence in the "forner (sic) nature" looks just exactly like what occurs today, and that it is indistinguishable from evidence occurring in the "present nature" ... or to be more specific, the distinction is useless, pointless, irrelevant, and unimportant in any way shape or form.

FAIL #39.

You guys are not here to debate but to preach

Says the poster with the fantasy religious beliefs who has done nothing else but preach his fantasy.

No, we are here to [i]educate[i] people (not you, you're impervious), the difference is that you can look at the evidence and follow the logic of evidence based arguments to reach consistent conclusions. Science is repeatable, even starting from scratch.

Message 670: I see something about a short lived isotope within rocks. Is your attempted point that there had to be decay because something was in a rock? Be clear. You see, when forces and laws come into being, atoms obey those forces wherever they are, I would think. If our present nature came to exist after the stuff was in a rock, explain why the new forces would not act on on that stuff anyhow?

So you glanced at, but did not read, and even your quickie comprehension is lacking. You have confused Polonium with Uranium. Uranium is not a "short lived" isotope by any stretch of imagination:

quote:
Uranium half-life

... The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years, making them useful in dating the age of the Earth.


So you just claimed that millions and billions of years is a short lived period, because apparently you didn't read beyond the first paragraph. ROFLOL. That's what happens when you don't read for comprehension, just for troll points. That is not debating in good faith, heck it isn't even debating. What a joke.

Further you just claimed that the halos being in the rocks is explained by them happening in the "present nature" ... which make that several hundred million years, and your claims of a "before" time become even more irrelevant and ludicrous.

But there is a lot more involved than just this aspect of the uranium halos. Your failure to get beyond the first paragraph means you didn't even get to the juicy parts.

FAIL #40

I am suspending EVC from my posts for a few weeks or maybe forever, we'll see.

Make it forever, you won't be missed. You add nothing.

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 673 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:16 PM starman has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
41424344
45
46Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017