Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8855 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-16-2018 10:28 AM
197 online now:
Coragyps, PaulK (2 members, 195 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,948 Year: 11,771/29,783 Month: 793/1,642 Week: 207/460 Day: 6/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4748
49
505152Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
JonF
Member
Posts: 4161
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 721 of 775 (827213)
01-19-2018 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 714 by creation
01-19-2018 3:58 PM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
How about that stuff indeed?

Got any evidence that those "issues" are real and real problems?

Didn't think so.


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

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4392
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 722 of 775 (827214)
01-19-2018 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 715 by creation
01-19-2018 4:02 PM


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

Tell us more about this 'former nature'. When did it happen and what was it like back then? Why did it change to the present nature?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:02 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:08 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 723 of 775 (827215)
01-19-2018 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 715 by creation
01-19-2018 4:02 PM


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

Tell us more about this 'former nature'. When did it happen and what was it like back then? Why did it change to the present nature?

And since this is a science thread, you should leave religious fantasies out of your explanation.


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 715 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:02 PM creation has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 724 of 775 (827223)
01-20-2018 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 714 by creation
01-19-2018 3:58 PM


predictable: creation repeats bogus refuted arguments
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.

This bogus claim was refuted on the SN1987A thread. Not only does it not belong on this thread it does not belong to any thread once is was refuted. They KNEW the rings were there, that's why they were counting the time from seeing the SN to seeing when the rings lit up -- and why they were looking at them.

Only creationists repeat falsified claims.

Please stick to the topic.

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 714 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:58 PM creation has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 725 of 775 (827225)
01-20-2018 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 715 by creation
01-19-2018 4:02 PM


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

So you don't know the meaning of consistent in this application. What a surprise. You want pictures, read the thread.

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

Yes, that is the difference between ignorant posts based on fantasy and ones based on scientific evidence.

Perhaps when you have time you can try to present evidence for your fantasy gumbo time.

No evidence, no theory; no theory, no argument.

Fantasy is not an argument.

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 715 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:02 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:52 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 726 of 775 (827226)
01-20-2018 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by creation
01-19-2018 3:52 PM


Re: Reply to creation ... off topic again
Another teaching moment, this time a two-fer

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?

(1) The iridium layer was deposited on a number of surfaces, from marine to desert, and it was later covered by a number of different deposition environments, some marine and some desert.

This variety negates it being associated with a world wide flood.

Creationists tend to cherry pick evidence and fail to look at the details that counter their claims.

Fail. Epic fail.

(2) Also off topic, which is a typical ploy of creationists, because they don't have valid arguments to deal with the topic issues. Notice that creations has not yet addressed a single original post on this thread, but thinks he can bluster through.

... which is another fail.

Please address the topic without rambling nonsense.

The topic is not just about measuring age, by why there is consistency and correlation between different systems if they are not measuring age.

Sadly, for you, your random blatherings totally fail to address the consistency and correlation issues.

Epic fail again.

In failing you prove my point in Message 1: no creationist has yet provided an argument that explains all the evidence and the correlations. Note that previous versions were also not refuted, and the later versions present more data and more correlations. The first version was posted in March 2004:

Equals 1,686 posts made since March 2004, and not one creationist has refuted the data, or even mounted a serious challenge to the correlations.

To counter scientific results you need to show where the errors are, what the result should be, and why. Opinion and evidence vacant assertions do not accomplish this, and that is why this thread has not yet been refuted by a creationist. They don't have the evidence and they don't have the science.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

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 713 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:52 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:18 PM RAZD has responded

  
creation
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 727 of 775 (827248)
01-21-2018 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 722 by edge
01-19-2018 9:01 PM


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

Tell us more about this 'former nature'. When did it happen and what was it like back then? Why did it change to the present nature?

Science doesn't know what it was like. This is a science forum. One needs to do more than believe it was the same and call that science, no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by edge, posted 01-19-2018 9:01 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 728 by Phat, posted 01-21-2018 2:12 PM creation has responded
 Message 729 by Percy, posted 01-21-2018 2:15 PM creation has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10970
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 728 of 775 (827249)
01-21-2018 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by creation
01-21-2018 2:08 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux
One needs to do more than believe it was the same and call that science, no?

What do you propose? alternative science?

One of your points which you wish to emphasize is that science is a belief.

Do you see the counter-argument? In order to be a good debater, it is always helpful to see the reasoning that your opponent uses.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:08 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:23 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 734 by dwise1, posted 01-21-2018 3:58 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17571
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 729 of 775 (827250)
01-21-2018 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by creation
01-21-2018 2:08 PM


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

One needs to do more than believe it was the same and call that science, no?

There is a great deal of data and analysis in this thread. To assert it isn't there is a misrepresentation of the most serious nature.

You were asked about this "former nature." If you have scientific evidence for it this is your opportunity to present it or forever hold your peace.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:08 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 731 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:20 PM Percy has responded

    
creation
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 730 of 775 (827251)
01-21-2018 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by RAZD
01-20-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Reply to creation ... off topic again
razd writes:

(1) The iridium layer was deposited on a number of surfaces, from marine to desert, and it was later covered by a number of different deposition environments, some marine and some desert.

This variety negates it being associated with a world wide flood.

Flood waters would cover it all, no? How would finding some in what is now desert help you?


(2) Also off topic, which is a typical ploy of creationists, because they don't have valid arguments to deal with the topic issues. Notice that creations has not yet addressed a single original post on this thread, but thinks he can bluster through.

... which is another fail.

If evidence of the flood is asked for, and one points to some materials in layers at a certain area of the geologic column, that is off topic? Then why ask? Also, you responded to the same issue, why go off topic then?


Please address the topic without rambling nonsense.
All your supposed correlations are from the same belief. Address that!

The topic is not just about measuring age, by why there is consistency and correlation between different systems if they are not measuring age.
Already answered, because your correlations all correlate from one belief!

Equals 1,686 posts made since March 2004, and not one creationist has refuted the data, or even mounted a serious challenge to the correlations.
No one needs to refute Santa stories, or your belief based stories! All they need to do is show they are mere belief based fabrications.

To counter scientific results you need to show where the errors are, what the result should be, and why.

Done. The error is that is is 100% belief based. Same belief used for all yes all and I mean all so called correlations. The result should be that they admit being belief based and not really knowing after all. Anything more than religion dressed as science to offer?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2018 2:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 735 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2018 5:42 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 742 by Percy, posted 01-22-2018 12:04 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 731 of 775 (827252)
01-21-2018 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 729 by Percy
01-21-2018 2:15 PM


Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
If you can prove your same state nature in the past do it now of forever hold your peace! Or, if you can prove time in the far universe exists the same as here, do it!

Name any 'analysis' in this thread that is not based on that belief? Yes it is a serious misrepresentation of supposed knowledge or any real science to pretend you know when you fail to be able to put up the goods.

Edited by creation, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by Percy, posted 01-21-2018 2:15 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 743 by Percy, posted 01-22-2018 12:24 PM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 732 of 775 (827253)
01-21-2018 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by Phat
01-21-2018 2:12 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux
phat writes:

What do you propose? alternative science?

One of your points which you wish to emphasize is that science is a belief.

Do you see the counter-argument? In order to be a good debater, it is always helpful to see the reasoning that your opponent uses.


I propose they offer their beliefs as the anti bible religion they are, rather than some con job pretense of being known, or real science!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by Phat, posted 01-21-2018 2:12 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 744 by Percy, posted 01-22-2018 12:43 PM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 733 of 775 (827264)
01-21-2018 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by RAZD
01-20-2018 2:35 PM


Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
You want pictures, read the thread.
So rather than post a pic of tree rings post 5000 years old from a living or once living tree with rings that span that time, you say they are hiding in the thread somewhere!? Ha.

Edited by creation, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2018 2:35 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 737 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2018 6:07 PM creation has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3162
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 734 of 775 (827268)
01-21-2018 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by Phat
01-21-2018 2:12 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux
What do you propose? alternative science?

Actually, yes. That's been the goal of "creation science" all along. Well, actually the initial goal of "creation science" was to deliberately deceive the courts and the general public, but then the creationist community that had created it got suckered in and deceived as well. So then that's been its goal ever since the creationists fell for it.

They falsely believe that science is at war against God, so they must wage war against science. However, they are also fully aware of the physical benefits we have derived from science and technology (eg, electricity, computers, Internet, cars, flush toilets) and that they do not want to lose.

The science that they want to have is a cafeteria variety, one in which they can cherry-pick what they want and ignore what they don't like. After all, isn't that how they approach the Bible, cherry-picking out of context what they like while ignoring what they don't like? Some creationists have even started a campaign to change science, such as the Discovery Institute and its Wedge Document.

So then, yes, they do want an alternative science. One that is useless for learning anything about the universe, but solely useful for assuaging their own fears as it supports their lies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by Phat, posted 01-21-2018 2:12 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 736 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2018 5:50 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 739 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:58 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 735 of 775 (827269)
01-21-2018 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by creation
01-21-2018 2:18 PM


Still no evidence, so still no argument of any value.
razd writes:

(1) The iridium layer was deposited on a number of surfaces, from marine to desert, and it was later covered by a number of different deposition environments, some marine and some desert.

This variety negates it being associated with a world wide flood.

Flood waters would cover it all, no? How would finding some in what is now desert help you?

You said the iridium layer was evidence for the flood. As I noted, that doesn't work, it doesn't explain the evidence.

The iridium was deposited, following the meteor impact, covering a wide variety of surface type formations, as the ash and particulates fell from the sky, and they in turn were covered by a number of different surface type formations, due to geological processes, many of which have no relation to flooding (or even water). Those deposits have in turn been covered by newer surface type formations by those same types of geological processes. What is desert now is not necessarily related to what was desert after the iridium deposition.

We also know that the iridium layer was caused by the catastrophic explosion of a meteor hitting the earth near what is now the Yucatan Peninsula, not by flood water, because the iridium came from the meteor, not the earth nor the water.

You could of course look this up, but like most creationists you can't be bothered to do your own fact checking. (heck, most creationists don't really know what facts are).

(2) Also off topic, which is a typical ploy of creationists, because they don't have valid arguments to deal with the topic issues. Notice that creations has not yet addressed a single original post on this thread, but thinks he can bluster through.

... which is another fail.

If evidence of the flood is asked for, and one points to some materials in layers at a certain area of the geologic column, that is off topic? Then why ask? Also, you responded to the same issue, why go off topic then?

Because it is easy to be lured into answering inane comments. For comedy.

You do realize that the only reason I respond to your trolling is to show silent readers who may wonder how good creationist arguments are, that they are vapid empty and delusional, don't you?

I use you as a foil to show how science explains things with evidence and theory and testing, while creationism just makes things up. They can easily judge which arguments are persuasive.

The topic is not just about measuring age, by why there is consistency and correlation between different systems if they are not measuring age.
Already answered, because your correlations all correlate from one belief!

No that's not an answer it is an assertion. It is avoiding making a real answer. Because you have none.

Not belief, evidence. There is no contradicting evidence and therefore no cause to consider one.

You are the one making the claim that things were different, but have yet to post anything more than opinions and assertions. That's why you FAIL and FAIL and FAIL.

BTW -- Glad you, by default, agree that linear systems correlating with exponential systems correlating with astronomic orbits are all consistently end up with the same results.

But that's the biggest problem you face: why should they be so consistent when the are entirely different systems ... why should they ALL be affected in precisely the manner necessary to cause the correlations?

This thread is not so much about the different ways to measure past time, but the correlations and consistencies between the different systems.

Equals 1,686 posts made since March 2004, and not one creationist has refuted the data, or even mounted a serious challenge to the correlations.
No one needs to refute Santa stories, or your belief based stories! All they need to do is show they are mere belief based fabrications.

Then . Do . So.

That is what you have been asked to do from day 1: substantiate your argument with evidence. ie SHOW YOUR WORK.

If you have anything other than bald assertion, now is the time to show it.

Just claiming it is "mere belief based fabrications" is surprisingly void of evidence to base an argument on. You need evidence to support an explanation (theory) that shows it to be the case.

To counter scientific results you need to show where the errors are, what the result should be, and why.

Done. The error is that is is 100% belief based. ...

Sadly, for you, that is not sufficient, it is void of evidence, it is void of any explanation for why there should be some magical difference in time that is -- as yet -- undetected, and it is void of any convincing argument based on that missing evidence and that missing explanation.

It's just wasted bandwidth and another example for readers of how poor creationist arguments are when they are put to the test.

It is comedy, not science.

... Same belief used for all yes all and I mean all so called correlations. ...

Except that this fails to explain why there are correlations between entirely different systems.

For instance if you twist magic time to cause thousands of tree rings to grow in one day, then you also need a mechanism to change the 14C content in the air as it is deposited in those rings, with thousands of different concentrations, miraculously the same on opposite sides of the earth (because the dendrochronologies are on opposite sides of the earth) in perfect synchronization.

Here is the correlation between marine varves, tree rings and 14C levels:

So your claim is that all three different systems occur in perfect synchrony in less than a day, have yet to show any mechanism to cause this perfect 3-way correlation without it being due to the reality that time flux is not a tenable position for anyone but the most deluded creationist.

Note that you need a system for creating the marine varves that operates faster than particles are known to settle -- and at the same time sort between foraminifera and clay -- in water ... because of their respective settling rates ... in microseconds.

... The result should be that they admit being belief based and not really knowing after all. Anything more than religion dressed as science to offer?

Sorry, your case is massively insufficient, immature, and facile, it's just assertion and delusional opinion, repeated and repeated and repeated. Repetition does not improve a false argument, it just demonstrates that it is delusional.

The result is that you would be soundly mocked, derided and laughed at, if you tried to tell the scientists that they were wrong just because you said so.

Fail again. Because you have not idea what you are up against ... because you haven't read the thread. Because you have no idea how to do science. Because all you know is belief, ... so that is why you try to pretend science is belief. It isn't. Science is discoverable independent of belief, and there are many instances where different scientists have come to the same conclusion, even from different evidence: Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography came to the same conclusions about evolution as Darwin from entirely different evidence, even though they were contemporaries, and then acquaintances after the fact.

Curiously I know of no belief system that has arisen independently but ending up with the same beliefs.

This is the major difference between science and belief: one can be re-created from scratch, the other can't.

Heck there are even different Christian sects that end up with different beliefs based on the same single source.

So many different sects in every religion.

They keep diverging, not consolidating the way science does based on what the objective empirical evidence shows.

This ends today's example to forum readers of why creationist arguments are no competition for scientific evidence based ones.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : typo


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 730 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:18 PM creation has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
4748
49
505152Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018