Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2018 3:37 AM
186 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,279 Year: 19,102/29,783 Month: 1,047/2,043 Week: 92/507 Day: 3/89 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
80818283
84
85Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1246 of 1269 (844491)
11-30-2018 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1240 by ringo
11-29-2018 10:49 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
How would we know how many kinds of cattle were created?? No one says it was just cows!!! Ha.

In the next chapter after the one you cited we see it clarified.

13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

As we see they only entered AFTER THEIR KIND!

It is not that I do not know all about your religious dating methods, it is that you fail to be able to defend them, or show them to be anything else but beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1240 by ringo, posted 11-29-2018 10:49 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1252 by ringo, posted 12-01-2018 11:00 AM creation has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 1247 of 1269 (844492)
11-30-2018 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1244 by creation
11-30-2018 9:26 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
To declare the recorded growth rates of tree in the ancient world 'fake' you would need some proof that the current nature existed then. You have none, rendering your claims fake news.

Not at all.

If you are going to posit an alternative state, you should give us evidence that such a thing exists or existed, or even could exist.

Or you could agree that we do know of one state that actually does exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1244 by creation, posted 11-30-2018 9:26 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1249 by creation, posted 11-30-2018 9:39 PM edge has responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1248 of 1269 (844493)
11-30-2018 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1241 by Tanypteryx
11-29-2018 4:14 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Yes, science uses it's little criteria (godless belief based physical only, same state past) to manufacture all models.

It interprets the world and life and the universe that way!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1241 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-29-2018 4:14 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1253 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-01-2018 11:28 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1249 of 1269 (844494)
11-30-2018 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1247 by edge
11-30-2018 9:36 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
I posit that science uses the present nature/laws for models of the past. They do. Try to wiggle out of it all you like.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1247 by edge, posted 11-30-2018 9:36 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1250 by edge, posted 11-30-2018 9:43 PM creation has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 1250 of 1269 (844495)
11-30-2018 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1249 by creation
11-30-2018 9:39 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
I posit that science uses the present nature/laws for models of the past. They do.

There is no reason not to do so.

Try to wiggle out of it all you like.

Try to wiggle out of the fact that there is no other known state of nature.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1249 by creation, posted 11-30-2018 9:39 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1254 by creation, posted 12-01-2018 1:57 PM edge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 1251 of 1269 (844506)
12-01-2018 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1242 by creation
11-30-2018 9:23 PM


Re: ... Still so wrong -- the correlations win again
When I show that science doesn't know what nature existed ...

When did you do that? Did you show them pigs fly too? What journal is it published in?

Making a statement is not showing, it is telling an anecdote, a fiction, a fable. It can have facts -- "that's a chair" -- for instance, but that doesn't make the whole statement factual.

... the onus is on them to prove the one they claim existed. Obviously.

Nope. The onus is on you to prove your claim, because the sciences have already provided their work in research paper that have been peer-reviewed in scientific journals and cross-checked by alternate systems. Their conclusions are accepted as the best knowledge we have to understand the universe ... subject to change if anomalous information is discovered. When anomalous information is discovered it is the onus of the person/s making the discovery to explain it, publish it and have it peer reviewed -- not the rest of the science community to prove their science all over again. That would be you.

But you're all hat, riding in on your one-trick pony statement without a single fact to back you up, and -- sadly for you once again -- you still have not explained the correlations.

See, this is part of science and "new ideas/concept" as well, that the new paradigm has to explain all the existing information/evidence, and incorporate the new anomalous information into a new paradigm with a fuller explanation. Relativity vs Newton. The person that this job falls on is the promoter of the new paradigm -- so the onus is on your slack shoulders.

Failure to tackle the correlations means that you are failing the test of this thread, that your paradigm is failing the test of this thread, and that because of that failure, demonstrating that you do not have a better explanation, and demonstrating that your paradigm is a puff of smoke with no basis on facts and no usefulness in the world.

So prattle on if you want. But you lose when ever you provide no explanation for the correlations. That's 221 posts and 221 losses on this thread so far.

When I show ...

Indeed, when you show something other than bald unsupported assertions you will make a start. Possibly ... but it 's about time you started providing more than simple fantasy.

Enjoy

Message 1244: To declare the recorded growth rates of tree in the ancient world 'fake' you would need some proof that the current nature existed then. ...

You have that mixed up.

Nobody here is claiming the tree rings are "fake" here but you, so you need some proof that the current nature did not exist then, and describe that previous nature and point out when it changed, how it changed and how that affected all the dating techniques in such a perfect manner that the correlations still occurred.

You are woefully behind in that work ... you still haven't explained a single correlation, and so, still losing the debate. Still demonstrating that creationism is a total failure at proving the earth is young.

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 1242 by creation, posted 11-30-2018 9:23 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1255 by creation, posted 12-01-2018 2:05 PM RAZD has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15791
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 1252 of 1269 (844517)
12-01-2018 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1246 by creation
11-30-2018 9:35 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
creation writes:

It is not that I do not know all about your religious dating methods....


Oh, it certainly is. You haven't grasped the whole concept of this thread: It doesn't matter if you can disprove one dating method or even ten dating methods. There are dozens of dating methods, each depending on different assumptions, different physical principles - and they all produce the same dates. That's like reading a dozen books and they all tell you that Paris is the capital of France.

You could hypothetically prove that one or two of the methods were wrong but that would have no effect on the other methods.

But, if course, you have failed miserably to understand any of the methods, so your attempts to disprove them are meaningless.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1246 by creation, posted 11-30-2018 9:35 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1256 by creation, posted 12-01-2018 2:08 PM ringo has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1908
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 1253 of 1269 (844520)
12-01-2018 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1248 by creation
11-30-2018 9:38 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
creation writes:

Yes, science uses it's little criteria (godless belief based physical only, same state past) to manufacture all models.

And you use ignorance and fiction to manufacture an imaginary, fictional fantasy.

creation writes:

It interprets the world and life and the universe that way!

How would you know?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1248 by creation, posted 11-30-2018 9:38 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1257 by creation, posted 12-01-2018 2:10 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1254 of 1269 (844528)
12-01-2018 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1250 by edge
11-30-2018 9:43 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
So now we have to believe your religion because you think there is no reason not to!! Ha.

Then you read what the bible says about creation and life and you offer your religion as a reason not to believe that! Bizarre. How about this: if you claim a set of laws/nature existed and build all models of the past upon that claim, you need to darn well prove it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1250 by edge, posted 11-30-2018 9:43 PM edge has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1255 of 1269 (844529)
12-01-2018 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1251 by RAZD
12-01-2018 7:28 AM


Re: ... Still so wrong -- the correlations win again
Look, you spent all your time here going to insane lengths trying to act and interpret tree rings and all things as if there was a same in the past. Never stopping for a moment to prove there was.

That shows that you can't deal with the issue let alone show that the nature you claim existed did exist!

You can't show us anything in any of those silly religious rags/peer reviewed papers that even addresses what nature existed, can you? You all engage in a frenzy of activity using the belief nature was the same, as if in a contest as to who can make up the most insane lies that go furthest against God and the creation of God!

Tackling your one belief based so called correlations is as simple as tackling the one belief they all are based on!

You declared, if I recall or some other poster did, that the bible record of fast growing trees was fake. The reason obviously that this was done is because they believe that the nature we see today also existed then. Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1251 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2018 7:28 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1258 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2018 3:20 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1256 of 1269 (844530)
12-01-2018 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1252 by ringo
12-01-2018 11:00 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
I have grasped the evidences that you impose the one same belief upon! None of them nor all of them are any better than the one belief they sit on.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1252 by ringo, posted 12-01-2018 11:00 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1259 by AZPaul3, posted 12-01-2018 3:21 PM creation has responded
 Message 1268 by ringo, posted 12-02-2018 1:14 PM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1257 of 1269 (844531)
12-01-2018 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1253 by Tanypteryx
12-01-2018 11:28 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
Anyone can look at cosmology claims of the universe, or science claims of where life came from and when, and see what basis they have and claim.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1253 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-01-2018 11:28 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 1258 of 1269 (844548)
12-01-2018 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1255 by creation
12-01-2018 2:05 PM


Re: ... Still so wrong -- the correlations win again
Look, you spent all your time here going to insane lengths trying to act and interpret tree rings and all things as if there was a same in the past. Never stopping for a moment to prove there was.

That shows that you can't deal with the issue let alone show that the nature you claim existed did exist!

You can't show us anything in any of those silly religious rags/peer reviewed papers that even addresses what nature existed, can you? You all engage in a frenzy of activity using the belief nature was the same, as if in a contest as to who can make up the most insane lies that go furthest against God and the creation of God!

Tackling your one belief based so called correlations is as simple as tackling the one belief they all are based on!

You declared, if I recall or some other poster did, that the bible record of fast growing trees was fake. The reason obviously that this was done is because they believe that the nature we see today also existed then. Why?

Irrelevant.

Another total failure to deal with the correlations. Your loss. Again.

Tackling your one belief based so called correlations is as simple as tackling the one belief they all are based on!

Nope. You need to show why they still correlate when they are derived from different fact based methods. You have no idea what you are up against. You don't know what evidence is.

Think of two roads crossing at the correlation point. If you change one road, you need to change the other road in a way that will maintain that intersection. Now add a third road that intersects the other two ... you need to change it as well ... etc etc etc.

If you change them all together the same way, then you haven't changed the nature of their intersections/interactions and the original "map" still applies.

The correlations win because you cannot explain them with your simplistic lame made up fantasies, because they would need to change in different ways to produce similar results.

Enjoy

This might help:

Cor•re•la•tion(4)

[kawr-uh-ley-shuhn, kor-] noun
  1. mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.: Studies find a positive correlation between severity of illness and nutritional status of the patients. Synonyms: similarity, correspondence, matching; parallelism, equivalence; interdependence, interrelationship, interconnection.
  2. the act of correlating or state of being correlated.
  3. Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.
  4. Physiology . the interdependence or reciprocal relations of organs or functions.
  5. Geology . the demonstrable equivalence, in age or lithology, of two or more stratigraphic units, as formations or members of such.

Correlation means taking two or more systems and comparing them to see if they reflect similar results and this is usually shown graphically. Often a "best fit" mathematical curve can be derived to fit the data. A correlation is generally more accurate or precise than concordance.

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 1255 by creation, posted 12-01-2018 2:05 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1261 by creation, posted 12-02-2018 1:18 AM RAZD has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3536
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1259 of 1269 (844549)
12-01-2018 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1256 by creation
12-01-2018 2:08 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
I have grasped the evidences that you impose the one same belief upon!

No, creation, you have grasped nothing but your own misinterpretations of some hand-scratched scrolls of 3000 year-old goat herder’s fantasies.

You grasp nothing of science, of evidence, of logic, of critical thought.

We look out into the heavens and we see “nature” operate the same billions of lightyears away (which means billions of years ago) as we see it operate on this planet today. If the fine structure constant or the electron mass or e or c or any of the other physical constants were appreciably different over there or way back then, then we KNOW with extreme fidelity, that we would not see the results we witness.

The “nature” of this universe has been quite the same everywhere for the past 10 billion + years, let alone the past 10,000 years here on Earth. The multiple lines of evidence discovered over the last centuries assures this fact to an extreme level of confidence.

Your myth-based musings need a level of majik, like interstellar bathtubs full of iridium-infused holy water or asteroid impact craters created from inside the planet, not just implausible but impossible anywhere in this universe.

Even worse, given all the thousands of data points of real evidence we have discovered far outweigh your goat-herder fables with their total lack of ANY evidence whatsoever.

You lost every point you have tried to make on behalf of your silly delusions before you even started posting on this board. And in continuing to argue, disingenuously, against reality you have shown all creation that you grasp nothing at all.

[ABE] And now you're gone. What a waste of electrons.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1256 by creation, posted 12-01-2018 2:08 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1262 by creation, posted 12-02-2018 1:22 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3536
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 1260 of 1269 (844557)
12-01-2018 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1174 by creation
11-24-2018 3:09 PM


Re: Evo demolition expert
Look at the evidence, it seems iridium was with the water, and how deep does science say that is?

The evidence says something quite different. How do you know the iridium was with the water? Do you know of some way to test iridium to determine if it was wet? How do you know the water was even there in that quantity at that time? Your goat-herder scrolls? Is that all the "evidence" you can present?

You lose.

Name ONE of your so called experts that studied any violent rupture of a fountain of the deep ...

List any volcanologist. David A. Johnston for one. Husband and wife team Maurice and Katia Krafft for two more.

By the way, the even was thousands of years ago...not centuries.

No, these events were millions of years ago, not thousands and the scientific study of the remains that these events left behind has only been rigorous for the past few centuries.

I win on both counts.

Finally. You admit true ignorance.

Of course. I am not afraid of my ignorance of a whole slew of stuff. That's why I rely on a whole world of experts in every facet of human intellectual study using scientific methods to find, compare and argue facts to arrive at solid conclusions.

Unlike you, I suppose, I don't go to an astrologist for a hurt tummy nor to a holy shrine for financial advice. I know real experts who actually know what they are talking about.

Then of course you follow it with a plea to believe real hard, because somewhere...in hiding apparently...there are experts who know.

These experts aren't hiding. You are just (willfully) blind. Lift the scales from your eyes, creation.

I think of myself not as some mere apologist, but more of an evo demolition expert!

The only thing you have demolished here, creation, is your own intellectual reputation.

A big extinction is associated with the time of the impact...
Being caused by it is another matter! Whether even the impact was from below orn ot is not studied or apparently known!

K-T extinction was caused by massive environmental upheaval as a result of a 15 kilometer high mountain hitting the Yucatan at about 15-20 km/s. We KNOW this because, unlike your blind uneducated opinion, this thing has been studied in extreme detail over the last 40 years by hundreds of trained really smart folks.

This is fact and all your bluster and wishful thinking to shoehorn your ancient goat-herder myths into the picture fail miserably.

Since the flood water came from even deeper space, you are in no position to tell us how much iridium it brought also! No position at all.

Sure I am. I have this whole planet full of professionals, experts, scientists all, that have shown the whole world the evidence, real solid on-the-ground, in-the-ground, above-the-ground evidence that your flud is fictitious and that the iridium came to the K-T boundary layer in a big honking space rock, while you present no evidence at all. None.

You lose again. Doesn't it get tiring for you?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1174 by creation, posted 11-24-2018 3:09 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1263 by creation, posted 12-02-2018 1:30 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
80818283
84
85Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018