|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
?? If the forces and laws the govern atoms changed, praytell, how would some halo in a rock be exempt from changing also? You really have no clue regarding how things work. You change the radioactive process you change the energy involved and you change the constants that hold atoms and molecules together. You make it easier for alpha decay to happen faster, then it starts happening in other elements that have no evidence of radioactivity, either now or in the past. And then you need a way to speed up beta decay so that the pattern of decay chains occurs. Meanwhile molecules don't form or they fall apart. You end up with a mess. Now to manage this so that it miraculously appears as the product of old age and current nature, you are going to have many more mechanisms to govern and tune each process to perfectly mimic current nature. What it comes down to, is the fantasy of things being different in some past time means that the making of all things in past so that it perfectly replicates exactly evidence for actual old age while being much younger, means that your god is a joker and a liar. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
You have no clue how things worked.
What would be done is not change what we now have. In any nature God deems to be in place there is order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Many people place the flood somewhere around 4500 years ago. Noah observed no trees, so he stayed in the ark. Then a week later birds returned with evidence of a fresh tree. So he knew he could give the order to vacate the ark.
Noah observed men living a lot less years, because he lived centuries after the flood. If your dates are correct, he was alive when the furniture was made. We would not see any change in nature, because the nature we see is not what changed!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Message 932: You have no clue how things worked. What would be done is not change what we now have. In any nature God deems to be in place there is order. This is getting to the point of ridiculous repetition. Please present something to support your fantasy, otherwise there is no point in your argument worth considering. This is a scientific forum, so you need to provide evidence not religious belief.
Many people place the flood somewhere around 4500 years ago. Noah observed no trees, so he stayed in the ark. Then a week later birds returned with evidence of a fresh tree. So he knew he could give the order to vacate the ark. A leaf is not a full grown tree. That is not evidence of fast growth of trees. Can you provide objective empirical evidence of the landing site of the ark? This is a scientific forum, so you need to provide evidence not religious belief.
Noah observed men living a lot less years, because he lived centuries after the flood. If your dates are correct, he was alive when the furniture was made. What is your evidence for this claim? This is a scientific forum, so you need to provide evidence not religious belief.
We would not see any change in nature, because the nature we see is not what changed! And presto-chango magic did it, courtesy of your local god/s ... you just can't see it because it's magic ... Please stop with the garbage regurgitation, and start posting some substance to back your claims. Religious magic-god-did-it babble is not any kind of scientific argument and certainly does not explain any of the correlations. Your fantasy imaginary change in nature is less credible than the wizard of oz. The amusing thing about your posts on this thread is that you are adding to the massive evidence that creationists are incapable of explaining the correlations. Here we are at 934 posts on this version of this thread, add:
(this is Version 2 number 1, with new and updated information that has been uncovered by science since version 1) ... and you have 1,894 posts ... and not one explanation of a single correlation by a creationist, not one creationist has been able to explain the objective empirical evidence of several different age measuring systems have high degrees of correlations for the ages involved. Many have tried, all have failed. Like you they rarely get past the tree ring correlations. So you're in great company, making creationism look incapable of dealing with this reality. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
What it comes down to, is the fantasy of things being different in some past time means that the making of all things in past so that it perfectly replicates exactly evidence for actual old age while being much younger, means that your god is a joker and a liar.
We haven't even seen the half of it here. This guy has been polluting discussion forums for years now and, in case you haven't seen it, things only get more bizarre as time goes on. Not really worth responding to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
We haven't even seen the half of it here. This guy has been polluting discussion forums for years now and, in case you haven't seen it, things only get more bizarre as time goes on. Not really worth responding to. Yep, give a creationist an argument he thinks is stellar and not being able to recognize the faults, and they'll run with it ad nauseum. His argument about past nature is just a regurgitation of PRATT CA221 applied to everything ...
quote: Traces in the present, like the measurable actual existing levels of C14 in tree rings and artifacts. We have asked creation to show how he knows that the past was different and when that difference occurred, and there has been no answer to that question, his claim IS baseless. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
This is getting to the point of ridiculous repetition. Please present something to support your fantasy of a same state past, otherwise there is no point in your argument worth considering. This is a scientific forum, so you need to provide evidence not religious belief. Really.
What the bible says about Noah, is a record of His life. It goes to evidence of what things were like in those days. Science doesn't know. In any discussion of creation, one must look not only at what science does not know, and cannot deal with, but also at what evidences mankind does have. As much as origin fable false science folks want to wave everything away to defend their empty religion, a science forum cannot just be about such willful religious ignorance. Your correlations are all belief based. As I said all dating always has to get down to radioactive decay dates. Your king lists and tree rings simply have no meaning for the far past unless nature was the same. You have shown you do not know or care and that you will blunder on, using your beliefs to model the past regardless. You wave off any possible change in nature because it does not fit with your naturedunnit dogma. That is not honest and open minded, that is actually insanity. All history and bible records must be waved away in your religion. No creator can be considered. 'There could never have been any change because...there is no God'. That is not science. All your correlations are explained easily as religious drivel. All are based on only one belief. No science, just belief. The jig is up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
creation writes: All your correlations are explained easily as religious drivel. Quit trolling. There's a mountain of confirmed, fact-based evidence supporting the age of things. If you have evidence to support your personal assertion that time was somehow different a few thousand years ago, present it. Otherwise shut the fuck up.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
And it doesn't say anything about nature changing. What the bible says about Noah, is a record of His life. It goes to evidence of what things were like in those days.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member
|
This is getting to the point of ridiculous repetition. Please present something to support your fantasy of "a same-state" past, otherwise there is no point in your argument worth considering. This is a scientific forum, so you need to provide evidence, not religious belief. Really. Really? You are the one who needs to provide evidence. Please do so. Forum Guidelines Religious texts do not qualify as evidence. There is no evidence that science is a religion. Please conform to the Forum Guidelines. Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD Message 937: This is getting to the point of ridiculous repetition. Please present something to support your fantasy, otherwise there is no point in your argument worth considering. This is a scientific forum, so you need to provide evidence not religious belief. Should be in a quote box so readers know where it came from. This is kindergarten style argument, not one supporting your assertions.
Your correlations are all belief based. As I said all dating always has to get down to radioactive decay dates. Your king lists and tree rings simply have no meaning for the far past unless nature was the same. You have shown you do not know or care and that you will blunder on, using your beliefs to model the past regardless. You wave off any possible change in nature because it does not fit with your naturedunnit dogma. That is not : honest and open minded, that is actually insanity. All history and bible records must be waved away in your religion. No creator can be considered. 'There could never have been any change because...there is no God'. That is not science. All your correlations are explained easily as religious drivel. All are based on only one belief. No science, just belief. The jig is up. Fixed it for you. Took out all the religious nonsense and your repeated assertions that have no evidential basis. This shows how empty your argument is. You have made 98 posts on this thread and have not presented a single piece of supporting evidence either for your fantasy assertion of a "former nature" being different from the present, nor for you claim that science is based on beliefs rather than objective empirical evidence, known facts and logical conclusion made, theories that are tested -- not because they are beliefs, but because they are tentative conclusions and possibly wrong, they are tested to remove wrong conclusions. It's called the scientific process. You should try it some time.
At best you've only accomplished the first step, and that hardly qualifies as sufficient for a science thread argument. Again, this is a science thread, and that means you need to present evidence to support your argument rather than just repeated it ad nauseum. And I see you have been warned. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I am one asking for evidence. Unless it is forthcoming we will have to admit that there is no proof for the basis of modeling the past used by science.
I do not know about the nature in the past, so I have no burden of proof either way. Those who claim it was the same do have a heavy burden of proof. I have pointed out that it is only a belief, and not known. Since I have my own beliefs, why would I exchange those for beliefs in some same nature in the past that contradicts the record of antiquity we have of that time in Scripture? You must show any claimed nature in the past to be true and totally bear the burden of proof. To try and avoid the issue by lamely insisting that anyone questioning your belief bears responsibility to prove they are wrong is dishonest and weak. The part of science that is belief based is the parts involving origin claims. So don't try to hide behind science as a whole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Since what is described is impossible in this nature and a big change occurred, you are wrong. We have many details from before and after and they contrast starkly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
My observation is that your correlation claims are all based on one belief. I need no counter hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
The Flood was an impossible event, not a "change in nature".
Since what is described is impossible in this nature and a big change occurred, you are wrong. creation writes:
Name "changes in nature" that happened in the Bible before the flood and after. Then give evidence that they happened in reality. We have many details from before and after and they contrast starkly.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024