Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 95 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2018 4:18 PM
259 online now:
jar, kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Rrhain (5 members, 254 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,286 Year: 5,109/29,783 Month: 1,041/1,467 Week: 238/462 Day: 25/42 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
47484950
51
52Next
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: 2.1


(1)
Message 751 of 775 (827521)
01-27-2018 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 746 by creation
01-26-2018 4:04 PM


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

Curiously this "what if cows could fly" comment still fails to address the actual evidence of this thread and certainly is still no answer to Message 735.

From Message 735:

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

I am not pretending when I say this has not been answered.

Message 735 also says:

... 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.

I am not pretending when I say this has not been answered.

... You are entitled to your beliefs. Don't pretend your beliefs were not addressed.

What has not been addresses is the evidence. Facts. Objective reality. Belief has nothing to do with those.

So I'm not pretending when I say not one piece of evidence on this thread has been addressed by you.

All you have done is post "pie in the sky" comments and ignore/deny the evidence that is there.

Curiously, that sounds like a tacit admission that you have no evidence, no theory and thus no argument, no refutation for the evidence of old age, no refutation for evidence that no world wide flood occurred during times covered by the data.

Your only worth on this thread is to demonstrate again how incapable creationists are at refuting the evidence of reality, the reality that the earth is very, very, very old and that there is not one piece of evidence for a global flood.

The crater may have been a fountain of the deep with the impact coming from below to above. ...

Nope. You may be ignorant, but that makes a different kind of crater, one that isn't lined with fused glass. Again, you could have done research on this, but like most creationists you don't. Because you think belief doesn't need reality.

Again, a teaching moment: you don't even pause to look up what impact craters look like before winging another ad hoc fantasy.

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 746 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 4:04 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 754 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:48 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 752 of 775 (827524)
01-27-2018 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 739 by creation
01-22-2018 9:58 AM


Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
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.

Curiously, this thread is about age measuring systems, not religion. The data is agostic and readily available to anyone who wants to investigate it.

From Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A), Message 712

quote:
Please do not ignore that you have provided no evidence for time existing as it does on earth in deep space.

Please define the limits of your "fishbowl" ... is it your brain? the earth? the solar system? the galaxy? the universe?

Where's the line?

How do you know?

How can we tell if you are right?

You have made similar claims about the past ... what is the limit of our knowledge of the past: is it your lifetime? written history? the archeological history of human existence? the paleontological history of life of earth? the age of the earth? the age of the universe?

Where's the line?

How do you know?

How can we tell if you are right?

If you can't answer these questions, then why should we consider your argument worth considering?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Now I am reposting this here because this is one place where you have made your claim about time.

These are questions that you continually fail to answer.

Because you have no answer. You have no evidence, you have no hypothesis, you have no argument that is scientific.

All you have is delusion, fantasy and wishful thinking and hand-waving denial of the world around you being very, very, very old. The evidence is in this thread.

If you cannot answer those questions, then no matter how much you bluster and stamp your feet, the evidence remains unrefuted.

As long as the evidence remains unrefuted, and you offer no counter evidence, the conclusions based on the objective evaluation of the evidence remain unrefuted.

As long as the conclusions based on the objective evaluation of the evidence remain unrefuted and you offer no alternative conclusion based on the evidence, their validity remains unrefuted.

Neither denial nor fantasy are refutations. Your personal opinion is not able to change reality.

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 739 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:58 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 753 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:42 PM RAZD has responded

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


Message 753 of 775 (827543)
01-27-2018 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 752 by RAZD
01-27-2018 10:06 AM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
razd writes:

Curiously, this thread is about age measuring systems, not religion.

Curiously, this thread is about religion, and your same state past belief that you failed to support in any way. The time for denial is over.

You are now asked to show any one of your correlations that does not depend on there having been a same set of forces and laws on earth in the past?

Tree rings...no. Fast growing trees would not have rings that took a long time to grow, however similar the rings may look to you.

Corals? No. Similar reasons to above.

Radioactive decay in the past? Prove there was any then as there now is?

In all cases, you appeal to belief.

Period.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2018 10:06 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 755 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2018 2:53 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 756 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2018 3:24 PM creation has responded
 Message 757 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2018 5:13 PM creation has not yet responded
 Message 758 by Percy, posted 01-27-2018 8:26 PM creation has responded

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


Message 754 of 775 (827545)
01-27-2018 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 751 by RAZD
01-27-2018 7:38 AM


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

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.

I am not pretending when I say this has not been answered.

Now looking at the text before you say things were not answered, I see you claim it was formed in less than a day?

Explain?

that makes a different kind of crater, one that isn't lined with fused glass

Impact force from either direct would fuse glass. Walt Brown envisioned massive explosions of water from below if I recall. So, if you can rule that out, fine. I don't need it to be so. You see I have many options. But since you claim something maybe you better show that it is known that the impact was from above?

I prefer not to take a fixed stance on an issue until the evidence is clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2018 7:38 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 759 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2018 11:35 AM creation has responded
 Message 770 by dwise1, posted 01-29-2018 10:10 AM creation has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 755 of 775 (827546)
01-27-2018 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by creation
01-27-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
You persistence in your delusions in the face of contrary evidence is beginning to resemble a case study in abnormal psychology.

You present no evidence, but continue to insist your unevidenced beliefs are accurate in spite of being shown real-world evidence to the contrary.

Also, you are ceasing to even be amusing, as your posts were at first. They're now just tedious and repetitious.

The theme of this thread is correlations among various dating methods, and "Is not!" is simply not a valid response.


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 753 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:42 PM creation has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 756 of 775 (827548)
01-27-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by creation
01-27-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
Curiously, this thread is about religion ...

Fail. That is a childish ploy to avoid the evidence. Or an admission that you don't know how science operates.

Tree rings...no. Fast growing trees would not have rings that took a long time to grow, however similar the rings may look to you.

Corals? No. Similar reasons to above.

Fail.

That is just an assertion, not evidence based comment: where is your evidence that all trees grew faster? Corals?

Faster growing trees (as in the tropics) don't form annual rings at all. Corals grow daily rings.

Radioactive decay in the past? ...

That is what the evidence shows.

... Prove there was any then as there now is?

Science doesn't prove things, it disproves faulty arguments -- with evidence that shows it is faulty -- but the best it can do is recognize a theory as the best explanation currently available to explain the evidence.

All the evidence from decades of scientific study that attempted to show differences in the past have failed.

You claim otherwise? Then where is your evidence? What, you don't have any? I'm sorry. Fail.

You haven't demonstrated that there is anything in your argument to disprove it is just an assertion, an opinion, a fantasy. Science progresses by disproving hypothesis that are attempting to explain evidence. You don't have evidence, so you can't have a hypothesis based on evidence.

In all cases, you appeal to belief.

Nope. I can touch, feel and measure tree rings for instance. Other people can touch, feel and measure tree rings. In fact this has been done multiple times as part of the scientific review. They get the same results.

That is how science works. It's not belief, it is recognizing what the evidence shows. It is building hypothesis to explain the evidence, and then it testing the hypothesis to try and prove it wrong. A tested hypothesis is a theory that is used to make predictions, and those predictions further test the theory. The theory is never "believed" even after passing many tests, rather it is recognized as the best explanation currently available for the evidence.

In all cases* you assert fantasy rather than deal with the evidence.

* - not one of your "cases" actually refers to any of the specific evidence provided in the thread.

Thanks for playing. All you are doing is accomplishing three things:

  • extend the length of attempts by creationists to refute the evidence and the correlations of this thread, and

  • serve once more as a teaching moment for showing others how pathetic creationist arguments can be when faced with the evidence of reality.

  • in the process you make a mockery of creationism. Maybe that is your goal.

Notice how you once again avoid answering these basic questions that should be easy if you had a real argument and not fantasy:

Message 752: From Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A), Message 712

quote:
Please do not ignore that you have provided no evidence for time existing as it does on earth in deep space.

Please define the limits of your "fishbowl" ... is it your brain? the earth? the solar system? the galaxy? the universe?

Where's the line?

How do you know?

How can we tell if you are right?

You have made similar claims about the past ... what is the limit of our knowledge of the past: is it your lifetime? written history? the archeological history of human existence? the paleontological history of life of earth? the age of the earth? the age of the universe?

Where's the line?

How do you know?

How can we tell if you are right?

If you can't answer these questions, then why should we consider your argument worth considering?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Now I am reposting this here because this is one place where you have made your claim about time.

These are questions that you continually fail to answer.

If you had answers you might have an argument, but without them you don't have anything but delusional babbling.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added


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 753 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:42 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 763 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:57 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 757 of 775 (827554)
01-27-2018 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by creation
01-27-2018 2:42 PM


Here's the real problem ...
Curiously, this thread is about religion, and your same state past belief that you failed to support in any way. The time for denial is over.

You are now asked to show any one of your correlations that does not depend on there having been a same set of forces and laws on earth in the past?

Tree rings...no. Fast growing trees would not have rings that took a long time to grow, however similar the rings may look to you.

Corals? No. Similar reasons to above.

Radioactive decay in the past? Prove there was any then as there now is?

In all cases, you appeal to belief.

Here's the real problem with your posts:

Curiously, I wish there were some actual substance to them to debate, a proper challenge to the information I have spent considerable time and effort for over 13+ years to investigate, provide and explain, as a challenge to creationists to their fundamental belief in a young earth (or some variation thereof).

This information is agnostic, as is all objective empirical evidence. It just doesn't care what you believe, it is there to be recognized or ignored, but it is not altered in any way by any person's opinion or belief.

Your particular blatherings do not even touch the surface of the evidence. There is nothing in your posts worth more than a cursory comment: it is not based on evidence, it is not based on a hypothesis based on evidence, it is not based of a conclusion of a hypothesis that is not based on evidence. It is smoke trying to hide the evidence (or hide from the evidence).

There is nothing to debate. Smoke is not debate.

So forgive me for expecting more than you are able to deliver, for expecting more from creationists.

Meanwhile the total lack of refutation that disproves a single post or a single correlation continues to add post after post after post that demonstrates the validity of this thread.

Sorry, but that's reality.

Enjoy


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:42 PM creation has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16964
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 758 of 775 (827559)
01-27-2018 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by creation
01-27-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
razd writes:

Curiously, this thread is about age measuring systems, not religion.

Curiously, this thread is about religion,...

This thread is in the Dates and Dating forum, which is a science forum, so this is a science thread. If you go to the forum list page you'll see that the Dates and Dating forum is listed among the science forums.

...and your same state past belief that you failed to support in any way.

What are you, blind? This thread is full of copious evidence, all of which you've managed to ignore while repeating ad nauseam your unsupported claim about belief.

The time for denial is over.

It isn't possible to deny evidence that doesn't exist. You have as yet not offered any evidence for your position, so there's no evidence for anyone to deny.

You are now asked to show any one of your correlations that does not depend on there having been a same set of forces and laws on earth in the past?

There's Oklo here on Earth that shows natural physical laws a couple billion years ago were the same then that they are now. And when we look out at the universe we see the same natural physical laws out there that we observe here.

Tree rings...no. Fast growing trees would not have rings that took a long time to grow, however similar the rings may look to you.

That's all you got? You've offered no evidence that trees grew spectacularly faster in the past than they do today.

Corals? No. Similar reasons to above.

Again, that's all you got? You've still offered no evidence. All the evidence we have points to past life growing at normal rates.

Radioactive decay in the past? Prove there was any then as there now is?

Oklo.

In all cases, you appeal to belief.

That's a gross misrepresentation. We've offered evidence for all our claims.

Period.

Yes, period, as in once again you end a post without offering any evidence at all for your position.

Regarding your Message 754 to RAZD:

creation in Message 754 writes:

razd writes:

So your claim is that all three different systems occur in perfect synchrony in less than a day,...

Now looking at the text before you say things were not answered, I see you claim it was formed in less than a day?

Can't you read? RAZD clearly said that the "less than a day" claim was yours.

that makes a different kind of crater, one that isn't lined with fused glass

Impact force from either direct would fuse glass.

Are you daft? There are so many things wrong with your idea. The Earth is solid, so there's nothing moving around within the Earth to impact the surface. The asteroid was moving at an estimated 12 miles per second. An object striking the Earth from above leaves a crater, and what you're thinking of (which is impossible) would not. Fused glass such as is found at impact craters can't form from geologic processes here on Earth.

Walt Brown envisioned massive explosions of water from below if I recall.

Walt Brown has as much evidence for his ideas as you do for yours, in other words, none.

So, if you can rule that out, fine. I don't need it to be so. You see I have many options.

The only option you've chosen so far is to completely eschew evidence.

But since you claim something maybe you better show that it is known that the impact was from above?

Again, are you daft? The Earth is not hollow. There are no objects bouncing around inside and impacting the surface.

I prefer not to take a fixed stance on an issue until the evidence is clear.

Nobody's going to believe that - you've dismissed or ignored all evidence so far.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:42 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 760 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:46 PM Percy has responded
 Message 762 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:54 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 759 of 775 (827602)
01-28-2018 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 754 by creation
01-27-2018 2:48 PM


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

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.

I am not pretending when I say this has not been answered.

Now looking at the text before you say things were not answered, I see you claim it was formed in less than a day?

Explain?

YOUR claim was that tree rings formed extra fast in your magical flux time fantasy. To bring the data into the squished timescale means condensing everything older than historical records -- which is kind of difficult when those records extend to 2660 BCE or 4,618 years ago and you want the whole timescale to fit inside 4500 years.

Even allowing the flood date to wiggle out to 4618 years ago means a massive compression of all dates after that -- including the evidence for tree rings, and marine varves.

These are the consequences of your claim that make it untenable.

that makes a different kind of crater, one that isn't lined with fused glass

Impact force from either direct would fuse glass. ...

Except that one would create a bowl under the downward impact and the other would blow the glass away into the atmosphere.

... Walt Brown ...

Is a charlatan that only fools gullible people.

... made up envisioned massive explosions of water from below if I recall. ...

And the evidence for this is?

The cause of this was?

Making up stuff is not science, as you should know by now.

... So, if you can rule that out, fine. I don't need it to be so. ...

quote:
Walter Brown's "Hydroplate" Flood Model Doesn't Hold Water

Earth Boiled, Steamed and Roasted

Another serious problem with Brown's model is the immense heat that would be generated during the proposed cataclysmic eruptions (Castagnoli, 2009; Morton, 2003), which would have literally boiled the oceans and steamed to death all animals and humans aboard Noah's ark. Appealing to supposed experiments with "supercritical water" (SCW), Brown claims the heat would be insignificant, but the calculations demonstrate that the heat would indeed be more than lethal. Sharp (2005) calculated that the energy released in ejecting just the still-orbiting asteroids is the equivalent to approximately twenty trillion hydrogen bombs. Sharp remarks, "The mind completely boggles how Noah and his family, together with his menagerie of animals and plants could have possibly survived all this in a large wooden boat!"


Just one part of the many problems with his ideas.

... You see I have many options. ...

Yes, you can look at the data honestly or you can pretend it isn't valid and make up stories.

Curiously, when you do science there is one option: follow the evidence.

... But since you claim something maybe you better show that it is known that the impact was from above?

The bowl of fused glass and other is at the bottom of the crater.

quote:
Identifying impact craters

Non-explosive volcanic craters can usually be distinguished from impact craters by their irregular shape and the association of volcanic flows and other volcanic materials. Impact craters produce melted rocks as well, but usually in smaller volumes with different characteristics.

The distinctive mark of an impact crater is the presence of rock that has undergone shock-metamorphic effects, such as shatter cones, melted rocks, and crystal deformations. The problem is that these materials tend to be deeply buried, at least for simple craters. They tend to be revealed in the uplifted center of a complex crater, however.

Impacts produce distinctive shock-metamorphic effects that allow impact sites to be distinctively identified. Such shock-metamorphic effects can include:

  • A layer of shattered or "brecciated" rock under the floor of the crater. This layer is called a "breccia lens".[17]
  • Shatter cones, which are chevron-shaped impressions in rocks.[18] Such cones are formed most easily in fine-grained rocks.
  • High-temperature rock types, including laminated and welded blocks of sand, spherulites and tektites, or glassy spatters of molten rock. ...
  • Microscopic pressure deformations of minerals.[20] These include fracture patterns in crystals of quartz and feldspar, and formation of high-pressure materials such as diamond, derived from graphite and other carbon compounds, or stishovite and coesite, varieties of shocked quartz.
  • Buried craters, such as the Decorah crater, can be identified through drill coring, aerial electromagnetic resistivity imaging, and airborne gravity gradiometry.[21]

So not just fused glass, but a number of features unique to impact craters.

I prefer not to take a fixed stance on an issue until the evidence is clear.

Science does not take a fixed stance, it follows the evidence to determine what the evidence shows. when the evidence changes the science changes.

You prefer to play games rather that learn science.

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 754 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:48 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 761 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:51 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 764 by edge, posted 01-28-2018 6:27 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 760 of 775 (827620)
01-28-2018 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 758 by Percy
01-27-2018 8:26 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
percy writes:

This thread is in the Dates and Dating forum, which is a science forum,..

Except the content and OP are belief based only. That is not science.

You cannot claim a same nature in the past without evidence. You cannot spam item after religious item based on there having been a same state past without ever stopping to first prove there was.

Offering tree rings as proof of ages as if they were grown in this nature, without showing why or how is religion. Offering to collaborate that with some other belief based feature of a same state past is religion. It was pointed out that all collaborations here are from the same belief!

Rather than try and desperately call that science it seems you guys should be addressing the elephant in the room.

Dis I not ask razd and others to simply show even one of the supposed correlations that were NOT based on this one belief?! Why are you not capable of doing that?

Strange.

Edited by creation, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 758 by Percy, posted 01-27-2018 8:26 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 773 by Percy, posted 01-29-2018 12:32 PM creation has not yet responded

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


Message 761 of 775 (827621)
01-28-2018 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 759 by RAZD
01-28-2018 11:35 AM


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

YOUR claim was that tree rings formed extra fast in your magical flux time fantasy. To bring the data into the squished timescale means condensing everything older than historical records -- which is kind of difficult when those records extend to 2660 BCE or 4,618 years ago and you want the whole timescale to fit inside 4500 years.

No. It is my claim you do not know and have chosen simply to believe in a certain state in the past. N dates you use have any other worth or reason for existing other than that belief. So don't know my dates that try and use bible dates.

https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/timeline


This message is a reply to:
 Message 759 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2018 11:35 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 769 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 8:10 AM creation has not yet responded

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


Message 762 of 775 (827622)
01-28-2018 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 758 by Percy
01-27-2018 8:26 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
percy writes:

Radioactive decay in the past? Prove there was any then as there now is?

Oklo.

Great. So the Oklo fable is your defense!!!? So tell us how you know the whole site was dunked miles under the surface of the earth when needed, and then eons later, brought to the surface?? Hint? You can't...you just need it to be so. Correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 758 by Percy, posted 01-27-2018 8:26 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 763 of 775 (827623)
01-28-2018 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 756 by RAZD
01-27-2018 3:24 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
razd writes:

Nope. I can touch, feel and measure tree rings for instance. Other people can touch, feel and measure tree rings. In fact this has been done multiple times as part of the scientific review.

That's funny earlier you failred to eben be able to post a detailed picture of tree rings from a tree that had more than 5000 rings!? Now we supposedly can touch them?

Then you have the nerve to accuse others of an inability to debate?

Smoke, meet mirror.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 756 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2018 3:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4194
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 764 of 775 (827627)
01-28-2018 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 759 by RAZD
01-28-2018 11:35 AM


Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
You prefer to play games rather that learn science.

In creation's world, it is not necessary to learn science, in fact, it's a hindrance to do so.

It's all very convenient. Since we don't know everything going back to the beginning of the universe, we really can't be sure of anything. So, it's possible to just make stuff up, and the truth is whatever he decides.

This guy is going to bore you to death with his platitudes and self-righteous attitude.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 759 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2018 11:35 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 765 by jar, posted 01-28-2018 6:48 PM edge has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 765 of 775 (827628)
01-28-2018 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 764 by edge
01-28-2018 6:27 PM


posts like creation's are valuable
Fortunately the posts by creation are so completely devoid of evidence, reason, even basic Christian education that they stand as a monument to ignorance and deceit.

It is posts like those that help lead people out of the Christian Cult of Ignorance. Unfortunately in most cases it is posts like those from creation that lead people to totally abandon Christianity as little more than a foolish cult when in fact this posts only represent the most ignorant and dishonest Christian dogma.

You can still be a Christian without leaving your brain at the door.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 764 by edge, posted 01-28-2018 6:27 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 766 by edge, posted 01-28-2018 9:27 PM jar has responded
 Message 768 by Phat, posted 01-29-2018 8:04 AM jar has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
47484950
51
52Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018