Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8856 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2018 3:11 PM
215 online now:
ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Stile, xongsmith (5 members, 210 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,007 Year: 11,830/29,783 Month: 852/1,642 Week: 266/460 Day: 21/44 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
474849
50
5152Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 736 of 775 (827270)
01-21-2018 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 734 by dwise1
01-21-2018 3:58 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux
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? ...

Indeed. This is how you get evangelicals not just endorsing cheating pedophile serial sexual predator Dumpty Trumpty, but hailing him as a new messiah (vs the antichrist as they labelled Obama).

Because abortion of empty sac conceptions is the single issue of concern ...

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 734 by dwise1, posted 01-21-2018 3:58 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

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


Message 737 of 775 (827271)
01-21-2018 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 733 by creation
01-21-2018 2:52 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.

No, I am simply saying that IF you actually read the thread you would find the evidence. If this is hiding, then it is hiding it in plain sight for anyone/everyone to see.

This is why other readers will see your argument fails -- they can read the threads and see the evidence.

But you -- obviously -- have not read the thread, and more to the point have no intention of doing so, for that would mean confronting the actual evidence.

This is the WORST argument creationist make. Instead of confronting the evidence they avoid it with simpleton comments like this.

Another reason creationist arguments fail, over and over and over.

Fail

Fail

Fail

creationists fail to confront the evidence of old age.

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 733 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:52 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 738 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:53 AM RAZD has responded

  
creation
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 738 of 775 (827299)
01-22-2018 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 737 by RAZD
01-21-2018 6:07 PM


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

No, I am simply saying that IF you actually read the thread you would find the evidence. If this is hiding, then it is hiding it in plain sight for anyone/everyone to see.

This is why other readers will see your argument fails -- they can read the threads and see the evidence.

But you -- obviously -- have not read the thread, and more to the point have no intention of doing so, for that would mean confronting the actual evidence.

This is the WORST argument creationist make. Instead of confronting the evidence they avoid it with simpleton comments like this.

So now we see you actually do not have what you alluded to. OK. No news here.

Ha.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 737 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2018 6:07 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 741 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2018 10:42 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 739 of 775 (827301)
01-22-2018 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 734 by dwise1
01-21-2018 3:58 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux
The proof is in the pudding. The models of creation science has offered are against the record God offered. Time to face the fact that different spirits are behind both.

As for the 'oh, science gave us gidgets' nonsense, face the fact that all that science deals with or 'gives' us is here and now. Nothing to do with creation or origins.

Edited by creation, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by dwise1, posted 01-21-2018 3:58 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 740 by jar, posted 01-22-2018 10:33 AM creation has responded
 Message 752 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2018 10:06 AM creation has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30708
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 740 of 775 (827305)
01-22-2018 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 739 by creation
01-22-2018 9:58 AM


Reality
creation writes:

The proof is in the pudding. The models of creation science has offered are against the record God offered. Time to face the fact that different spirits are behind both.

All of the evidence shows that God had absolutely nothing to do with the content of Bible stories unless God is an ignorant liar.

Ignorance is behind the Biblical accounts, that's for sure; but ignorance can be cured and many today are far less ignorant than the authors of the Bible stories. Unfortunately that is not true for Creationists, the remain willfully ignorant.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 739 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:58 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 745 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 4:02 PM jar has responded

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


Message 741 of 775 (827306)
01-22-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 738 by creation
01-22-2018 9:53 AM


Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
There is no point in replying to someone who repeatedly doesn't read what is said.

Notice Message 735 has been ignored, but a one liner is posted, supposedly in reply to Message 737, but ignores the point of that post as well.

Too much reality? Too much Science? Evidence?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 738 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:53 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 746 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 4:04 PM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17580
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 742 of 775 (827309)
01-22-2018 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by creation
01-21-2018 2:18 PM


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

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?

You mean a global flood? There's no evidence for a global flood across the entire history of the Earth.

How would finding some in what is now desert help you?

Not what is now desert, but what was then desert. The iridium layer is typically found buried in layers of all types that 65 million years ago were deserts, forests, prairies, coastal regions and seas. What type of ecosystem is on the surface now above the buried iridium layers is irrelevant to what was there 65 million years ago.

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?

Some topic diversion is very common in threads. Moderators try to maintain a sense of when a topic diversion is beginning to dominate a thread, and if this happens they encourage taking that discussion to another more appropriate thread.

Please address the topic without rambling nonsense.

All your supposed correlations are from the same belief. Address that!

The correlations are evidence from the real world. Do you have any real world evidence to counter them? It would seem not. All you've got is this monotonous schtick of, "That's just your belief so I'll ignore all the evidence."

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!

You're offering up the same meaningless schtick, but that's not an answer. Do you have any evidence for anything you claim?

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.

Well, yes, that's true, were you able to show that the evidence presented in this thread were merely "belief based fabrications" then you would truly have relevant and effective rebuttal, but you haven't done that. All you've done is repeated (and repeated and repeated) an unsupported claim that science is making stuff up while ignoring all evidence.

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

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

You're again repeating your unsupported claim while ignoring the evidence.

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

The only belief these correlations are based upon is that evidence and observation of the real world combined with replication and consensus building help us understand how the universe works.

The result should be that they admit being belief based and not really knowing after all.

Will you never write anything that addresses actual evidence?

Anything more than religion dressed as science to offer?

So you believe religion can't figure out the laws of the universe, and so can think of nothing worse than to label as religion any science you reject. But if religion is so figuring out the universe, how can you base your beliefs about how the universe works on religion?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:18 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 747 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 4:18 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17580
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 743 of 775 (827310)
01-22-2018 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 731 by creation
01-21-2018 2:20 PM


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

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!

You're referring to a discussion in another thread. I did offer evidence that the laws of the universe hold true throughout the universe across all time. I haven't read that thread yet today, so if you have any responses there I haven't seem themyet, but it would be surprising if you break your pattern and actually address any evidence.

Name any 'analysis' in this thread that is not based on that belief?

RAZD began this thread with a number of messages detailing the evidence and analysis for an ancient Earth. See Message 1, Message 2, Message 3, Message 4, Message 5, Message 6, Message 7, Message 8, Message 9, Message 10, Message 11 and Message 12. A number of his other messages contain additional evidence and analysis, see Message 21, Message 22, Message 92, Message 257, Message 274, Message 452, Message 548, Message 573 and Message 663.

AbE: You requested tree ring images at one point, and the The Science of Tree Rings has a number of them. See:

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : AbE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 731 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:20 PM creation has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17580
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 744 of 775 (827311)
01-22-2018 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by creation
01-21-2018 2:23 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux
creation writes:

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!

You still haven't introduced an ounce of evidence for your claims, while ignoring all evidence that counters your claims. It would seem that you believe as you do because of religion and not because of any evidence, and that your basis for choosing which science you accept and which you reject is based upon which science contradicts your religious beliefs and which science does not. Evidence, the foundation of all scientific understanding, is not part of your method.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:23 PM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 745 of 775 (827505)
01-26-2018 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 740 by jar
01-22-2018 10:33 AM


Re: Reality
jar writes:

All of the evidence shows that God had absolutely nothing to do with the content of Bible stories unless God is an ignorant liar.

Ignorance is behind the Biblical accounts, that's for sure; but ignorance can be cured and many today are far less ignorant than the authors of the Bible stories. Unfortunately that is not true for Creationists, the remain willfully ignorant.

Insults aside, calling God an ignorant liar is blasphemy. You allude to evidence we do not see posted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 740 by jar, posted 01-22-2018 10:33 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 748 by jar, posted 01-26-2018 4:59 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 750 by Coyote, posted 01-26-2018 10:01 PM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 746 of 775 (827506)
01-26-2018 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 741 by RAZD
01-22-2018 10:42 AM


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

..

From post 735.

"The iridium was deposited, following the meteor impact.."

The crater may have been a fountain of the deep with the impact coming from below to above. You are entitled to your beliefs. Don't pretend your beliefs were not addressed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 741 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2018 10:42 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 751 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2018 7:38 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 747 of 775 (827507)
01-26-2018 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 742 by Percy
01-22-2018 12:04 PM


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

You mean a global flood? There's no evidence for a global flood across the entire history of the Earth.

Not if you expect some undisturbed uniform recent layer or something. The actual flood was probably before mountain building and drift, and a lot of things that disturbed the bejinkins out of the earth. The flood was not some act of nature, but of a Scientist, who planned it all with precision.

Not what is now desert, but what was then desert. The iridium layer is typically found buried in layers of all types that 65 million years ago were deserts, forests, prairies, coastal regions and seas. What type of ecosystem is on the surface now above the buried iridium layers is irrelevant to what was there 65 million years ago.
The question remains...so what?? You think there was none of that pre flood?


The correlations are evidence from the real world.

Only if we limit the meaning of real to the present nature world. The correlations are all based on one belief. Nothing else. Therefore any internal agreement (however forced) is of no relevance at all. The only thing that matters is the belief they all rest upon.


You're offering up the same meaningless schtick, but that's not an answer. Do you have any evidence for anything you claim?
Having the correlations based on one belief is of utmost meaning. That means you must forget the smoke and get to the fire.


Well, yes, that's true, were you able to show that the evidence presented in this thread were merely "belief based fabrications" then you would truly have relevant and effective rebuttal, but you haven't done that.
Well, easy to demonstrate that I have indeed done that. Name any one of the correlations that does not sit solely and exclusively on the same nature in the past belief!!? Unless you can, I claim total victory.


Will you never write anything that addresses actual evidence?
Will you ever post any evidence that is not smeared and drowned and painted with your big belief? You see, molesting evidences with beliefs is not presenting evidence, it is denying that you are using beliefs.

So you believe religion can't figure out the laws of the universe, and so can think of nothing worse than to label as religion any science you reject. But if religion is so figuring out the universe, how can you base your beliefs about how the universe works on religion?

There is no need to figure it out God already told us. All I ask is that fake news so called origins sciences stop pretending that they have anything but beliefs. They could never figure it out. Impossible. They are shooting blanks. They are playing with a deck of 2 cards!

Edited by creation, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 742 by Percy, posted 01-22-2018 12:04 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 749 by Percy, posted 01-26-2018 7:44 PM creation has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30708
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 748 of 775 (827509)
01-26-2018 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 745 by creation
01-26-2018 4:02 PM


Re: Reality
creation writes:

Insults aside, calling God an ignorant liar is blasphemy. You allude to evidence we do not see posted.

If God is the author of the Bible then God is an ignorant liar. That is not something I'm saying, that is what the evidence shows.

Don't get your panties in a wad because the facts show that the Bible has two mutually exclusive creation tales with two mutually exclusive descriptions of the God and both of the tales are factually wrong.

The folk committing blasphemy are the willfully ignorant at best and in most cases simply dishonest conmen trying to sell the Bible as something other than the creation of man.

In the two creation myths the Gods are different, the means of creation are different, the order of creation is different and as I said, the order is factually wrong.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 745 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 4:02 PM creation has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17580
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 749 of 775 (827514)
01-26-2018 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 747 by creation
01-26-2018 4:18 PM


Re: Reply to creation ... off topic again
Responding to several of your messages...

Responding to your Message 745 to Jar:

creation in Message 745 writes:

Insults aside, calling God an ignorant liar is blasphemy. You allude to evidence we do not see posted.

This is the Dates and Dating forum, a science forum. If you're talking about God here the only one committing blasphemy (discussion board blasphemy) is you.

Responding to your Message 746 to RAZD:

creation in Message 746 writes:

razd writes:

..

From post 735.

"The iridium was deposited, following the meteor impact.."

You have a quote region that says only "..", then although you're replying to RAZD's Message 741 you quote from his Message 735? Using this discussion board is really rocket science for you, isn't it. Or is it that you put about as much thought into your formatting as you do into your content?

The crater may have been a fountain of the deep with the impact coming from below to above. You are entitled to your beliefs. Don't pretend your beliefs were not addressed.

RAZD's just telling you what the evidence tells us. What's your evidence? Or is this "that's just your belief" stuff just another version of your "fishbowl" nonsense.

percy writes:

You mean a global flood? There's no evidence for a global flood across the entire history of the Earth.

Not if you expect some undisturbed uniform recent layer or something.

I don't have any expectations. I just follow the evidence where it leads. If you think there was a global flood sometime during Earth's history, what evidence are you looking at?

The actual flood was probably before mountain building and drift, and a lot of things that disturbed the bejinkins out of the earth.

And you know this how?

The flood was not some act of nature, but of a Scientist, who planned it all with precision.

If you've got religious answers you should take them to the religious threads. This is a science thread. If for religious reasons you believe the Earth is young and there was a global flood 4500 years ago then I think that's fine, but you should leave those beliefs out of this thread. This is a science thread where you should be discussing the scientific evidence behind your views.

Not what is now desert, but what was then desert. The iridium layer is typically found buried in layers of all types that 65 million years ago were deserts, forests, prairies, coastal regions and seas. What type of ecosystem is on the surface now above the buried iridium layers is irrelevant to what was there 65 million years ago.

The question remains...so what??

"So what" is a question?

You think there was none of that pre flood?

What I think is that that's an incredibly sparse explanation - no evidence of a flood and no explanation for how the worldwide iridium layer got there.

What I also think is whatever the evidence indicates. The iridium layer is the same age as the asteroid crater off the Yucatan Peninsula. Iridium is a very rare element on Earth, but not in asteroids.

The correlations are evidence from the real world.

Only if we limit the meaning of real to the present nature world. The correlations are all based on one belief. Nothing else. Therefore any internal agreement (however forced) is of no relevance at all. The only thing that matters is the belief they all rest upon.

Well now you're just producing word salad. If you'd like to try repeating this explanation in understandable English, if indeed it has any meaning, I'd be glad to reply.

You're offering up the same meaningless schtick, but that's not an answer. Do you have any evidence for anything you claim?

Having the correlations based on one belief is of utmost meaning. That means you must forget the smoke and get to the fire.

More word salad nonsense. Do you have a real argument?

Well, yes, that's true, were you able to show that the evidence presented in this thread were merely "belief based fabrications" then you would truly have relevant and effective rebuttal, but you haven't done that.

Well, easy to demonstrate that I have indeed done that.

Interesting delusion.

Name any one of the correlations that does not sit solely and exclusively on the same nature in the past belief!!? Unless you can, I claim total victory.

You write some nonsense, then claim total victory. I don't think that's going to take you very far. You're going to have to address the evidence other people have provided, or produce some evidence of your own, before anyone will take you seriously.

Will you never write anything that addresses actual evidence?

Will you ever post any evidence that is not smeared and drowned and painted with your big belief? You see, molesting evidences with beliefs is not presenting evidence, it is denying that you are using beliefs.

This is a science thread. If your discussion isn't going to be based on evidence, there's no point in you being here. If you have issues regarding the philosophy of science (your "big beliefs" claims) then this is the wrong thread for that discussion. You should propose a thread for the Is It Science? forum, which you can do over at Proposed New Topics.

So you believe religion can't figure out the laws of the universe, and so can think of nothing worse than to label as religion any science you reject. But if religion is so figuring out the universe, how can you base your beliefs about how the universe works on religion?

There is no need to figure it out God already told us. All I ask is that fake news so called origins sciences stop pretending that they have anything but beliefs. They could never figure it out. Impossible. They are shooting blanks. They are playing with a deck of 2 cards!

Again, you should leave your religious beliefs out of the science threads.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 747 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 4:18 PM creation has not yet responded

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


Message 750 of 775 (827518)
01-26-2018 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 745 by creation
01-26-2018 4:02 PM


Re: Blasphemy
Insults aside, calling God an ignorant liar is blasphemy.

Of all the strange crimes that humanity has legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing - with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for second and third place.

Robert A. Heinlein, "Notebooks of Lazarus Long," from Time Enough for Love (1973)


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 745 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 4:02 PM creation has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
474849
50
5152Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018