Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 93 (8832 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2018 5:12 AM
218 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 216 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,613 Year: 5,436/29,783 Month: 1,368/1,467 Week: 254/311 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4647
48
49505152Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 706 of 775 (827084)
01-17-2018 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 701 by creation
01-16-2018 9:39 AM


Re: creation continues Starman's failed arguments, goes off-topic
razd writes:

This thread is not about misinformed comments on abiogenesis, and origins is not part of the thread. There are other threads about abiogenesis you can comment on, or you can start one at Proposed New Topics

This thread is not about you tossing out the word science and have it embrace whatever you like either.

This thread is about age counting systems. Everything you say that doesn't address that is off topic and an attempt by you to avoid the issues. You can be reported for not debating in good faith.

razd writes:

There are no theories in the bible, and discussing them is irrelevant to this thread. Please deal with the evidence on this thread rather than posting pot-shots with no substantiating evidence. Your problem is to deal with the evidence, not talk about the bible.

Testable predictions I think was what was being discussed, not theories. Keep up. Since you claim predictions, post them. Remember, a prediction is not a circular argument designed to fit the evidence you beliefs.

No the subject was science which develops theories from objective evidence and then makes predictions that test the theories. The thread is about counting systems to measure age. The prediction is that all these systems will come to the same results where they overlap, because each of the different systems is based on scientific evidence of age.

razd writes:

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 14-C levels in artifacts in Egyptian pyramids give the same dates as the historical record, thus validating the 14C usage to correlate artifacts to tree rings.

False. That is NOT relevant unless it came about in this nature. Your circular reasoning so called dating collaboration is indeed circular. You asusme a same nature in the past for both, and then claim by so doing, the imaginary dates agree.

Still irrelevant. You have not shown in any way that the dates are incorrect. Instead you have pre-assumed it and then used imagination to justify your assumption. You talk about circular reasoning, but all you have is circular reasoning -- you have no evidence, you have no theory, you have no argument. Your only use on this thread is to show what an ignorant desperate creationist argument looks like compared to one based on science.

razd writes:

Indeed, because curiously, what I mentioned was geological not geographical

Hold on...what exactly is geographical that you claim here??

Except that, again, I did not claim geographical -- you did, and just did it again. Are you so ignorant you don't know the difference between geological and geographical? Really? I would laugh if it weren't so sad.

razd writes:

And amusingly, we do not need to go back to the "very early dawn of earth" to show that young earth creationism is a bald false view of reality. That the data extends well beyond any YEC scenario has been shown, that it cross-correlates and provides consilient results across many different measurement systems shows that these data are robust and the conclusions made from the data are valid.

Sorry, no way. You should face the fact that the dates you use are faith based and not accepted as reality by YECs. For example, my opinion of when the flood was is about 70,000,000 years ago in your imagined science time. That equals about 4500 real actual years ago. So when you claim something is beyond YEC time remember you are only talking about faith based religious time that is not accepted.

And amusingly, not only is 70,000 years not part of any known, documented YEC dogma (you are out on a limb here all on your own), but that is still invalidated by the objective empirical data documented in this thread. Try reading the thread and responding to the issues there.

... For example, my opinion of when the flood was is about 70,000,000 years ago in your imagined science time. That equals about 4500 real actual years ago. ...

Your argument is just bald assertion, your (worthless) opinion, and not based on any evidence. Opinion has time and again proven totally incapable of altering reality. The only person you convince with opinion is yourself.

Your opinion is worth less than all the ant frass in Antarctica, because it is not objective empirical evidence, it is not fact; what you have is delusion.

razd writes:

Except you have yet to establish that you know what science is or how it works. Your comments bleed ignorance.

You have yet to establish that science works at all outside the fishbowl of this present nature. Your comments ooze self righteous dark religion.

There has been no contradictory evidence to it working. There is the evidence from multiple sources coming to the same conclusion time and again that provides evidence that it is working. If you read -- and understood -- the thread you would know this.

razd writes:

But I do. Read the thread and stop shooting in the dark of ignorance. Just like starman ... going around to a bunch of threads and posting simplistic comments of "you have no way of knowing" is not an argument, is not science, is not debating in good faith.

And you pretend that somewhere hiding in a desert of belifs that you post as if they were science ,there is some weighty proof or support for. So far it doesn't look like there is anything but smoke and no fire.

Says the person who has not read the thread and not shown that a single element of it is in error or is not supported by objective empirical evidence.

This is the worst tactic a creationist can take to win an argument -- avoiding the arguments in the thread and just post a lot of trash and delusional belief, hoping to destroy knowledge to somehow make his delusion a winner ... when they also destroy the basis for any belief. To make science imaginary, you make everything imaginary, including the chair you sit on. There is no reason to believe you with science and there is no reason to believe you without science. And, as soon as you accept the chair as real, you accept science as real.

razd writes:

Your task, should you undertake an actual debate on the subject at hand, is to show that what I have posted on this thread is false, not to make stuff up. This task involves you providing substantiating evidence and some form of theory to demonstrate your argument provides a better explanation.

Your posts on any thread are not as deep or mystical or important as you thought apparently. In posts to me you offered preciesly zero! Allusions to some great posts you made. Get serious.

And so we still have avoidance of dealing with the issues on this thread. Your still trying to disrupt this thread with irrelevant blather, rather than reading the posts and dealing with the evidence.

This is how you fail, just as every other creationist has failed. This is a losing argument, every time.

razd writes:

..your arguments provide are teaching moments for other people reading this thread to see and understand the science versus your threadbare arguments based on fantasy and imagination.

Some may not be learning what you think! Some may learn that maybe science doesn't really know after all.

Curiously, I'll take that chance, as I have feedback from people who read this thread and renounced their YEC beliefs ... because the evidence convinced them, and because the failure of YEC arguments -- even ones as bizzarre as yours -- failed to convince them ... because they could see the falsehood in the YEC position, the failure to reflect reality.

Certainly there is nothing to be learned from your arguments: all you have posted anywhere is your opinions -- and everyone already has theirs. What convinces people to change opinions is objective empirical evidence.

So provide objective empirical evidence to support your argument or fail.

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 701 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:39 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 709 by creation, posted 01-17-2018 10:03 AM RAZD has responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 707 of 775 (827091)
01-17-2018 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 703 by New Cat's Eye
01-16-2018 9:49 AM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
NCE writes:

And now you're gonna Gish Gallop?

The failed prophesies n of cosmology are failed religious prophesy. If you try to offer some that you think were fulfilled, we must look at the rest.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 9:49 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by Percy, posted 01-17-2018 3:29 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 708 of 775 (827092)
01-17-2018 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 703 by New Cat's Eye
01-16-2018 9:49 AM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
coyote writes:

The evidence for some "other nature" is totally lacking. To try and rely on this imaginary "other nature" to negate the parts of science that disprove bible-based claims is ridiculous.

From science, yes, the evidence for any state in the past is totally lacking So do not clam a same state past.

You assume an "other nature" in the past, then claim the dates don't agree. One approach is based on evidence, the other on religiously-based fantasy.
Your belief in a certain nature is OK. When it becomes more than that, you can try to knock other beliefs.

You have to place the flood 70 mya because all earlier placements for the flood have been disproved. Actually, all proposed dates for the "flood" have been disproved.

Yes. That seems to be the best fit with the evidence. Why, you want to place it somewhere else?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 9:49 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 709 of 775 (827093)
01-17-2018 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 706 by RAZD
01-17-2018 7:56 AM


Re: creation continues Starman's failed arguments, goes off-topic
razd writes:

This thread is about age counting systems.

Great, and so far we see you want to use tree rings as if they were grown in this nature for no apparent reason. Then you want to use all the laws and forces that cause radioactive decay that we have in this present nature as if they also existed in Noah's day. It seems apparent to me that such religious claims should come with some scientific evidence?

So, when we bet barraged by belief based reasons why you imagine old ages, it is not off topic to request that you provide actual evidences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2018 7:56 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2018 11:27 AM creation has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6103
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 710 of 775 (827099)
01-17-2018 11:16 AM


Reply to creation
You responded to New Cat instead of me.

creation writes:

Coyote writes:

You have to place the flood 70 mya because all earlier placements for the flood have been disproved. Actually, all proposed dates for the "flood" have been disproved.

Yes. That seems to be the best fit with the evidence. Why, you want to place it somewhere else?

There is no evidence for a global flood at 70 mya or any other time. The global flood is a religious myth.

The original date claimed was ca. 4,350 years ago but when the evidence showed there was no flood at that time claims were made for other times, all the way back to 70 mya and beyond. There is solid evidence that there was no global flood at any time.

But creationists can't accept that their beliefs are wrong, so the flood keeps on moving around in time, now here and now there.

And the ways they try and discount inconvenient dates from the past are particularly amusing, with magic vapor canopies and wildly fluctuation decay rates and all the rest.

So, you don't like radiocarbon (C14) dating, eh? How about coming up with some evidence for a change as to why it doesn't work. I'm sure I'll find that amusing. By the way, I have done 707 radiocarbon dates, and have four more out and being processed currently, so I know a bit about the 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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:52 PM Coyote has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 711 of 775 (827102)
01-17-2018 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 709 by creation
01-17-2018 10:03 AM


Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
razd writes:

This thread is about age counting systems.

Great, and so far we see you want to use tree rings as if they were grown in this nature for no apparent reason. ...

We start with tree rings because trees grow rings in a consistent pattern, and we use these specific tree rings because that pattern is an annual pattern with no apparent deviation for some fantasy time warp. Each of the rings has the same beginning and ending characteristics from ring to ring to ring.

We test 4 different tree chronologies one against the other to compare their agreement, and we find highly corresponding values from one chronology with each of the others.

That is reason enough to use them. Until you can show that there is some deviation from this pattern of growth you have no argument. One that consistently affects each of the different chronologies.

You want to counter that there was an imaginary time flux magic that miraculously caused rings to grow hyper fast.

What is the cause for this and what is the evidence that such a cause was present? Why does it perfectly create annual rings? Why are the ring width variations consistent with the ring width variations seen in the historically documented and validated portion of the ring data? Why is there no transition point observable?

You've got a lot of empty holes in your argument. There is no -- repeat NO -- evidence observed that such a thing happened.

Again without evidence you have no theory, and without theory to explain the evidence you have no argument.

Once again, opinion is not evidence or theory. Maintaining belief that is contradicted by facts is delusion.

... as if they also existed in Noah's day. ...

There is no evidence that there is, or ever was, such a thing as "Noah's day" - so that part of your argument is invalid vapid opinion and not in any way based on fact or evidence. Not admissible. Not relevant. Not evidence. Not scientific.

This is a science thread not a spurious religious fantasy discussion thread -- you need evidence to support your argument, not just vapid empty opinion.

... . Then you want to use all the laws and forces that cause radioactive decay that we have in this present nature ...

The point of bringing 14C decay into the argument is that it shows consistent dating back to the time of the pyramids, validating the tree ring annual ring counts.

Because different isotopes of carbon are not sorted or react differently in chemical or biological processes we can use the 14C levels as a test of the tree rings -- tree rings of the same age will have the same 14C concentrations, and those concentrations will decrease as we go back in time, as measured by the tree rings.

This is a test for tree rings as a measure of age, and one that was passed with flying colors.

We also observe that there is a solar sunspot cycle that affects the production of 14C in the atmosphere, a cycle that we see in the tree ring data that is consistent for the length of the tree ring data. .

This also brings up the point that 14C decays along an exponential curve, while the tree ring numbers make a straight line against age, and that the sunspot cycle is also a consistent straight line against age. And we can use the sunspot cycle as a further test of the 14C data to see that this cycle is consistent.

This is another test of the tree ring data, and one that was also passed with flying colors.

That's a 3-way consilience of results that you have totally failed to explain with your magic time flux fantasy.

This is what is observed in the evidence. It is what the evidence shows.

This means that if both ring growth and 14C levels are affected by some imaginary time flux magic, that you need three different mechanisms to provide these results, one that magically and invisibly changes tree rings from annual rings to having hundreds of rings per day, and at the same time magically and invisibly change the amounts of 14C embedded in the rings, and not just to match the tree ring age levels (exponential), but to match the solar spot cycle effect on the 14C concentrations in the atmosphere (linear).

Your vapid evidence vacant assertions do not begin to accomplish this task.

... It seems apparent to me that such religious claims should come with some scientific evidence?

So, when we bet barraged by belief based reasons why you imagine old ages, it is not off topic to request that you provide actual evidences

Read the thread. Complaining about a lack of evidence when it is provided already in the thread is just lazy denial and avoidance behavior.

Argue against the scientific evidence that is provided with counter evidence and an explanation for the counter evidence.

Otherwise fail. Again.

And you haven't even begun to deal with the lake varves or the ice core data ...

If you can't get out of the starting blocks, you'll never win the race.

But hey, keep demonstrating to other readers how empty and fact free creationist arguments are -- it's the best way of showing people how silly and useless these beliefs are.

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 709 by creation, posted 01-17-2018 10:03 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 715 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:02 PM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16996
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 712 of 775 (827122)
01-17-2018 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by creation
01-17-2018 9:54 AM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
creation writes:

The failed prophesies of cosmology are failed religious prophesy.

What "failed prophesies of cosmology"?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by creation, posted 01-17-2018 9:54 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:58 PM Percy has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 713 of 775 (827191)
01-19-2018 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 710 by Coyote
01-17-2018 11:16 AM


Re: Reply to creation
coyote writes:

There is no evidence for a global flood at 70 mya or any other time. The global flood is a religious myth.

How about the stuff that comes from deep under the earth and space (iridium) such as the flood waters came from? What else would you like?

The original date claimed was ca. 4,350 years ago but when the evidence showed there was no flood at that time claims were made for other times, all the way back to 70 mya and beyond. There is solid evidence that there was no global flood at any time.
Same thing. Imaginary so called science years never existed in reality. So 70 million imaginary years has no real currency. You see, the only dating methods that exist all involve our laws and nature. The imaginary years claimed are only as god as the belief they rest on.


And the ways they try and discount inconvenient dates from the past are particularly amusing, with magic vapor canopies and wildly fluctuation decay rates and all the rest.
Trying to make the same mistake science makes in learning of the past is what they are doing. They are grasping at alternate scenarios but using the same laws. They could never construct such expensive and elaborate models based on that premise as godless science can.

So, you don't like radiocarbon (C14) dating, eh? How about coming up with some evidence for a change as to why it doesn't work.

Easy. It only works in this nature and as long as our forces and laws have existed. How long that is is not known.

By the way, I have done 707 radiocarbon dates, and have four more out and being processed currently, so I know a bit about the method.

So how about you prove that any radioactive decay at all existed long long ago?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 710 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2018 11:16 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2018 4:22 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 717 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 4:42 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 719 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-19-2018 5:26 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 720 by JonF, posted 01-19-2018 8:54 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 726 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2018 2:42 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 714 of 775 (827192)
01-19-2018 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 712 by Percy
01-17-2018 3:29 PM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
percy writes:

.....

How about failing to predict the rings of SN1987a? How about having to go back and computer model after the fact about what sort of star actually exploded, since it could not have been the one they thought was there? How about the predicted black hole not existing from the event? Etc.

Edited by creation, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Percy, posted 01-17-2018 3:29 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 718 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 5:06 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 721 by JonF, posted 01-19-2018 8:56 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 724 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2018 2:29 PM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 715 of 775 (827194)
01-19-2018 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by RAZD
01-17-2018 11:27 AM


Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
razd writes:

We start with tree rings because trees grow rings in a consistent pattern, ..

Nothing all that consitent that you have shown in rings some 5000 years old, is there? Any smaller or bigger, or darker or lighter in the rings,( if you ever could show a good close up pic of the rings..ha) could as easily been caused by the growth conditions in the time it grew in the former nature. You seem to have a superficial, shallow case.

You post was long, maybe I'll look at the rest later...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2018 11:27 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 722 by edge, posted 01-19-2018 9:01 PM creation has responded
 Message 723 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2018 10:03 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 725 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2018 2:35 PM creation has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6103
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 716 of 775 (827200)
01-19-2018 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by creation
01-19-2018 3:52 PM


Re: Reply to creation
You are not even worth replying to any longer.

You ignore facts, evidence, and indeed all of reality to nurture your favorite fantasy.

Get back to us when you actually have some evidence or some knowledge of what you're posting.


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 713 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:52 PM creation has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16996
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 717 of 775 (827202)
01-19-2018 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by creation
01-19-2018 3:52 PM


Re: Reply to creation
creation writes:

coyote writes:

There is no evidence for a global flood at 70 mya or any other time. The global flood is a religious myth.

How about the stuff that comes from deep under the earth...

What "stuff that comes from deep under the earth"? You mean ancient and now exposed sedimentary layers? Magma? What? Anyway, there's no evidence of a global flood, not 4500 years ago, not 75 million years ago, not ever.

...and space (iridium) such as the flood waters came from?

Again, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood ever, and the iridium layer is about 65 million years old.

The original date claimed was ca. 4,350 years ago but when the evidence showed there was no flood at that time claims were made for other times, all the way back to 70 mya and beyond. There is solid evidence that there was no global flood at any time.

Same thing. Imaginary so called science years never existed in reality. So 70 million imaginary years has no real currency.

The evidence that we find in the real world says says the years existed.

You see, the only dating methods that exist all involve our laws and nature.

Yes, the same laws of nature that we observe when we look out into the universe and back in time have existed unchanged for millions and billions of years.

The imaginary years claimed are only as good as the belief they rest on.

Actually, the ages revealed by radiometric and other forms of dating are only as good as the data and evidence they rest upon, which are of excellent quantity and quality and are conclusive.

...godless science...

Since science only includes that for which there is evidence, and since there is no evidence of God, and since you're in a science thread, what other kind of science could there be? I'm curious. Is the absence of God in science any more a detriment than the absence of God in plumbing or knitting or auto mechanics?

Easy. It only works in this nature and as long as our forces and laws have existed. How long that is is not known.

You keep saying this, but the evidence described to you shows this wrong and hasn't gone away.

So how about you prove that any radioactive decay at all existed long long ago?

The evidence from astronomical and cosmological observations proves it, and the radiometric decay products here on Earth prove it. The most dramatic example is a natural nuclear fission reactor at Oklo in Gabon.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:52 PM creation has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16996
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 718 of 775 (827204)
01-19-2018 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 714 by creation
01-19-2018 3:58 PM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
creation writes:

percy writes:

.....

Gee, did I really say, "....."? I thought I said, "What "failed prophesies of cosmology"?" Oh, what do you know, I did say that! Having finger or keyboard problems? Too lazy to cut-n-paste? What?

How about failing to predict the rings of SN1987a?

How is not making a prediction a "failed prophesy"? We still aren't sure of the cause of the rings, so why would you expect them to be predicted?

How about having to go back and computer model after the fact about what sort of star actually exploded, since it could not have been the one they thought was there?

How is not knowing as much in the past as we know now a "failed prophesy"?

How about the predicted black hole not existing from the event?

I'm guessing that you're referring to the missing neutron star, for which one possibility is collapse into a black hole. This yet unexplained phenomenona is not a "failed prophecy," nor even a "prophecy" at all, and certainly not a "failed religious prophesy," since this has nothing to do with religion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:58 PM creation has not yet responded

    
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 272
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 719 of 775 (827205)
01-19-2018 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by creation
01-19-2018 3:52 PM


Re: Reply to creation
Blahblahblah

Interesting. I had not realized that an inverted tin-foil hat would make such a serviceable word-salad bowl.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:52 PM creation has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4070
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 720 of 775 (827212)
01-19-2018 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by creation
01-19-2018 3:52 PM


Re: Reply to creation
The existence of radioactive decay in the distant past at the same rates as today is solidly established. Radioactive decay is the product of the most fundamental properties of the Universe. Differences from today would leave many detectable events in an astonishing variety of places. We've looked long and hard for those traces.

They aren't there.

Radioactive decay rates have been the same throughout the observable Universe for 99+ percent of its existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:52 PM creation has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
4647
48
49505152Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018