|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations, step by step. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
More importantly, how can your position that the past and future will be in the current state be falsified? By what criteria are you rating your question as more important than mine? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: Excellent. You actually try to deal with the issues. Now, here is the core issue with what you raise here. This message has been edited by relative, 05-07-2006 12:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
By the criteria you claim science. If so, back it up. If you admit to just a belief, fine, we both have those, do not teach kids your beliefs in school.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
do not teach kids your beliefs in school. Would Math, reading, spelling, geography qualify as not beliefs? What age would you feel it acceptable to teach beliefs? Say about Shakespeare or history, health, science? etc? High school? College? Graduate school? sometimes/always/never? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Cute. All these things are good knowledge. If you ask what age we ought to teach your unfounded belief the past and future must be the same as the present, then, no age is good enough. Don't try to sneak a piggyback on real science for your religion here. No can do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
I want to bracket "your unfounded belief that the past and future must be the same as the present". That statement is so compressed that I'm not sure what it represents at this point.
My religion is? Real science is? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5520 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
relative writes: I am not a silly last thursdayist. Oh, but you are a silly last thursdayist.That's the only logical conclusion to all your posts in this forum Too late to deny it now
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Your belief is that the past was only physical as the present. Real science deals with more that that belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Go ahead. make silly comments. This is a science forum. If you grow a point, do look us up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
if the present mimics that pattern in what now is a day cycle, it means only that the conditions are such that this is now how it works. A change so big, so fundamental, as to affect gravity, light, and the atomic and molecular structures of matter, and etc. reducing the growth rates, and lifespans and other things happened. It will happen again, this is what I believe. Now, you can say, believe whatever you want, where is the proof, and I say the same to you. I see. Given the way you state this which is of the form of "last Thursdayism" or of solipism because it is not falsifiable there is no way to disprove your belief. Science does make some assumptions which you don't accept and which are not falsifiable in your terms because you can always invoke God changing the universe to make it look the way you choose. I think you know full well the basis for science. If you wish to characterize those basic assumptions as religion I won't argue with you. As to why they are taught in school. Well, that is the science that is being done now. This is how it's being done. You can't prove to a solipsist that anything else exists. You can't prove to a last thursdayist that the world didn't come into existence last thursday. And you can't prove to a YEC Bibical literalist that that their explanations are false. You of course are welcome to your beliefs. Fare well and have a good life. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5520 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
My comment is not silly
It is based on your own previous posts to this forum There is no difference between your feeble logic and that of a Sillylastthursdayist. edited for clarity This message has been edited by fallacycop, 05-07-2006 02:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Please see this message, and the other related messages at that topic.
My impression is that you are lowering yourself to Simple's/Relative's level - Not at all something I recommend or find desirable. If you feel a need to respond to this message, please do it at the above cited topic, which is the "General..." topic, link below in my "signature". Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You now note that variations abounded in the different past as well. More than enough to account for anything you will ever come up with! I've always pointed out the variations existed rather than identical rings. These correlate with climate -- climate that we know from history and climate that we see from other sources in the geoplogical past. Variations in the size of annual rings due to climate exactly as we see today. More than sufficient to assume that similar variations are from the same cause and nothing else. Not sufficient to say WOW sudden change here!! Tree rings correlate with C-14 and with climate ... correlate with corals annual rings and daily rings and ... etc. evo conclusion -- the process we see today was what happened in the past. simple conclusion -- no something {undefined} "else" happened even thought there it no evidence for it. Remember we are talking about the difference between 4,400 years ago, where you accept the scientific data as fully compatable with your fantasy world, and 4,500 years ago when there is supposed to be some entirely different process. That curiously does not leave any evidence, nor is there any explanation for how it happened, what happened or why it happened, and which only exists (therefore) in your mind.
Right, we apply the different past to all things. Good point. By the way, how do we know that the universe did not orbit us back then? I am not sure. If the big change started the rotation of the earth, that might provide the mechanism for rapid continental seperation long sought after. You really have no concept do you? Curiously this effect is also missing from the geological record ... As I said, your denial of all evidence makes any fantasy ever conceived and every fantasy as yet unconceived possible, with no way of showing that any -- such as last-thursdayism -- are NOT possible (because you deny ALL evidence).
How long did each type of tree take to grow then? You do not know, nor I. I noted as a matter of fact that trees could grow in a week. I didn't say all did. So, where is it you tie in a year with a day? How about an hour? Or a week, maybe in some cases a whole month? There is enough flexibility and variation to explain anything your mind could come up with. Be sure of that. You claim the tree rings are a product of growth in a day. The amount of growth in the tree would have to be similar to the annual growth or this kind of change would be visible -- it would then be different. There is no such difference in the data, so there has to be a correlation in your {special day} growth to a normal {evo year} growth. This is your concept. I'm just showing you the logical problems with this concept. I'm sure that your fantasy is flexible and will come up with all kinds of ad hoc extra explanations you can think of.
The former light was not our sunlight. You simply note a present pattern. You cannot link it to the different past. I sure can link similar behavior to observed conditions, correlate them between different species alive at the same time, show the annual rings and the climate effects on the annual rings are the same across species, and note the daily growth rings of those species that exhibit daily growth rings now, also exhibited daily growth patterns in the past in exactly the same way (including the correct numbers of days). You cannot 'hand wave' the evidence away without providing another fantasy explanation, or you are just saying 'god-did-it' (to fool you) again.
This is getting too long, I'll cut it here. Or it is gettiing too dangerous for you to pursue without realizingg the errors in your thinking? Too close to actually having to deal with facts and the concequences of your concepts? Science makes hypothesis, based on observations, and then based on the hypothesis it makes predictions of new observations (such as the existence of daily rings in fossil corals), it then looks to see if the evidence corraborates or invalidates the hypothesis. You make a concept up from whole cloth with no relation to existing evidence and then hide from the evidence when it is provided. Don't forget, you can always plug your ears, close your eyes and shout LA-LA-LA ... if you don't want to deal with reality.
If the earth never rotated at all, might you need to tweak your astro assumptions a bit? And if it did rotate, would the observations be affected by the different growth rates of the past, and light, and a plethora of other things? Yes. Indeed. It would have a effect on the amount of sunlight per day, obviously. This is the major problem YOU have with claiming daily rings in place of annual rings: it would affect the daily growth rings of the corals. It would not affect the total sunlight per year, so the amount of tree growth in a year would be similar enough in total to count for rings, but the pattern would be different -- there would be much less growth during a long night with no daylight (no growth from chlorophyl derived energy without daylight) than during a winter with days and nights (reduced growth due to reduced hours of sunlight per day). This too is NOT observed in the data. Changing the earths rate of rotation would not affect the annual orbit of the earth around the sun or in the rest of the solar system -- beyond the observed and measured affect on the moon due to the interaction with the tides ... that other correlation you have yet to explain in your fantasy world, so your answer here is 'god-did-it' (to fool you). So no, just changing the rate of earth's rotation would not affect "a plethora" of other things. Of course you ALSO need a mechanism for changing the rotational period or your answer here is 'god-did-it' (to fool you).
quote:Excellent. You actually try to deal with the issues. Now, here is the core issue with what you raise here. I've been dealing with them all along, you are the one failing to participate. I'm glad that you agree that the core issue is your stamping of your foot and reassertion of your position without any evidence for it in any way in any universe. What we consistently come down to in your fantasy land is that 'god-did-it' (to fool you). What we consistently come down to in science is that the evidence corraborates the tree rings 4,500 years ago being annual tree rings just like they were 4,400 years ago. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
relative,
You can count ice layers back to major eruptions that can be dated radiometrically. It's a fact, not an assumption. There is also both ice core & dendrochronological evidence of climate change. Even seabed cores tell the same story. Why do different lines of evidence agree?
If you mean beyond 4400 years, all things also agree with the different past young earth dates, why? Can you explain this? A complete non-answer. I ask again: "Why do different lines of evidence agree? " Secondly, how do all dating methods agree with a young earth age?
What evidence do you have that tree rings were daily rather than annual in the past?
What evidence do you have they worked the same? None. Another non-answer. You said:
quote: So I ask again, "what evidence do you have that tree rings were daily rather than annual in the past?" You said you had evidence that tree rings were daily in the past. Where?
What evidence do you have at all that physical laws differed in the past? What evidence do you have at all that the earth is 6,000 years old?
NO evidence the laws were the same. No scientific evidence either way. That is what counts. That is the Achilles heel of old age belief. ANOTHER non-answer. No evidence of physical law constancy is not evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. Even if physical laws weren't constant, the earth may therefore actually be older than we think. Or younger, but only slightly. Nothing about law inconstancy suggests a 6,000 year old earth. If it is the Achilles heel of old earth "belief", then it is just as much an Achilles heel of young earth fantasy. So, I repeat myself for a third time & ask what evidence you have for a 6,000 year old earth?
So if you think earth age determinations are moot without first proving that physical laws are constants, in order to accept Jesus existing 2,000 years ago, you have to show you weren't created this week. Otherwise you are just making assumptions.
No, proof beyond reasonable doubt is readily available we were here more than a week. The reason deep age determinations are moot is because they go beyond reason, evidence, observations, testings, documentation, witnesses, etc. They rest on the limb of pure assumption. As far as you have explained, old earth age determination is unreasonable because physical law constancy hasn't been proven. In fact there is evidence for it, the correlation of different dating methods that are based on different physical phenomenon. If a physical law had altered, then the dates would not correlate, they would skew the more the constant altered. The fact that this is not the case indicates that the constants are exactly that. Old age determinations are therefore "reasonable", based on "evidence" & "observation". And is most definately not "pure assumption". But I digress. This is a test of your logical consistency. You can't have it both ways; where everybody else must disprove all possibles that may skew their conclusions, but you hold yourself to a different standard & don't have to do this. I'll spell it out again: Relative requires that a potentially possible phenomena (sans evidence) must be evidentially disproven before any conclusion can be reached for a given hypothesis. It therefore stands to reason that relative holds himself to exactly the same standard & must evidentially disprove last thurdayism before he can hold anything as being actually true last wednesday. The logic is the same, there is no wriggling out of it, you must either: 1/ Reject as false everything that occurred last wednesday, including all of your religious "events" that you hold as being true; 2/ Or admit to being a hypocrite. The crux issue is whether having to disprove all possible things that could potentially counter a theory is actually a reasonable requirement, before we can even begin to accept that theory. As you are discovering, it is not. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Money only goes back thousands of years. We are talking beyond that. But, honestly, Relative (by the way, whose relative are you? Anyone we know?), I don't understand how there can be such a fundamental boundary between two kinds of past: a recent past that science can tell us something about; and a more distant past where it can't, and principly so. Could you please tell us where the boundary lies, what caused it, and how you know all this? If I'm correct, you said yourself that no one has to accept anything from someone else at their word. So when you answer my questions, could you please provide some evidence? "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024