Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 9:30 PM
354 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,730 Year: 27,336/21,208 Month: 1,249/1,714 Week: 92/365 Day: 48/44 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   The dating game
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 61 of 94 (394478)
04-11-2007 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by MartinV
04-11-2007 3:45 PM


Re: Constants and change
I don't see a reason why darwinists stick on unchanged values of constants. Change of constants as well as change of physical laws should be something real as change of animals. And yet darwinists - probably much more than physicists - are vey afraid of changes of constants. They are as rigid as fundamentalist. I see no reason - exept reevaluation of radioactive dating of course.

Nobody's afraid of changed or changing values of constants. Research into the possibility of changing constants is a minor but active part of mainstream science, andmany mainstream scientiss think they have changed. Real scientists just don't bother to fish in dry wells; significant changes in constants and any changes in the last few billion years have been ruled out by observation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by MartinV, posted 04-11-2007 3:45 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 62 of 94 (394517)
04-11-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by MartinV
04-11-2007 3:45 PM


Re: Constants and change
I don't see a reason why darwinists stick on unchanged values of constants. Change of constants as well as change of physical laws should be something real as change of animals.

Why? The constants of physics don't reproduce with variation.

And yet darwinists - probably much more than physicists - are vey afraid of changes of constants. They are as rigid as fundamentalist. I see no reason - exept reevaluation of radioactive dating of course.

I'm afraid someone has been lying to you.

No-one is "vey afraid of changes of constants".

The reason scientists think that constants are constants is that when they measure them, they're constant. Let me know if there's any part of that you don't understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by MartinV, posted 04-11-2007 3:45 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 63 of 94 (394518)
04-11-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by MartinV
04-10-2007 1:00 AM


Re: Constants and change
You are a hard-core darwinist who don't know where Central Asia is as far as I remember.

Then your memory is as faulty as your arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by MartinV, posted 04-10-2007 1:00 AM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 64 of 94 (417113)
08-19-2007 3:04 PM


Question,
Isn't this all developed based on a uniformitarian philosophy?

I'm sure some admin or mod will say i'm off topic, and to side step the question. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME A NEW FORUM NAME!

like "Evolution Think Tank", or "Evolution Circle Jerk" or perhaps "The Average Person Just Doesn't Grasp The Complexity or Understand The True Logical Behind Our Precious Evolution Fact/Lie" or "Were Obviously the Highest Evolved Unlike Those Niggers."


Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Chiroptera, posted 08-19-2007 3:15 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 08-19-2007 3:18 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 67 by AdminNosy, posted 08-19-2007 3:31 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2007 6:46 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 65 of 94 (417118)
08-19-2007 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 3:04 PM


Re: Question,
Isn't this all developed based on a uniformitarian philosophy?

No. It is based on a uniformitarian assumption that can be (and has been) verified by the usual scientific methods.

-

I'm sure some admin or mod will say i'm off topic, and to side step the question. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME A NEW FORUM NAME!

like "Evolution Think Tank", or "Evolution Circle Jerk" or perhaps "The Average Person Just Doesn't Grasp The Complexity or Understand The True Logical Behind Our Precious Evolution Fact/Lie" or "Were Obviously the Highest Evolved Unlike Those Niggers."

This repitition is going to get tedious. Are you a troll? It appears that your main purpose here is to disrupt things.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 3:04 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 7:31 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13874
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 66 of 94 (417121)
08-19-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 3:04 PM


Re: Question,
Vashgun writes:

Isn't this all developed based on a uniformitarian philosophy?

You can either seach for an existing topic on uniformitarian philosophy or start a new one.

Instead of whining that nobody will listen to you, involve yourself in a topic.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 3:04 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 67 of 94 (417128)
08-19-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 3:04 PM


a formal warning
As has been noted you seem to have trouble paying attention to the forum guidelines you agreed to.

You will not be "stifled" in your criticisms of evolutionary science in the science thread if you can stick to the guidelines. If you don't agree with dating methods then you may say so. In the science threads you are required to back any opinions or assertions up with evidence and reasoning.

Continued arbitrary disruption of threads will force us to suspend you for short (and then longer times). Simply discuss in good faith and you can carry on as much as you want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 3:04 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19220
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 68 of 94 (417156)
08-19-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 3:04 PM


Re: Question, Reference
Isn't this all developed based on a uniformitarian philosophy?

It's based on science. See Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

I suggest you bookmark it read the opening sections down as far as your interest holds, and come back to it when you have a question on a specific method.

One thing to consider is how tested and validated the different methods are -- extensively -- and the possibilities for wild errors -- small, very very small.

Enjoy

ps -- goading is likely to be self fulfilling.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 3:04 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 69 of 94 (417162)
08-19-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Chiroptera
08-19-2007 3:15 PM


Re: Question,
No. It is based on a uniformitarian assumption that can be (and has been) verified by the usual scientific methods.

Ok, again with the wording hoopla.
Assumption:
5 a : an assuming that something is true b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted

see:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/philosophy

uniformitarianism has been verified? Stop the presses! I'd like to see the article on that. You really like saying science. It's like your religious mantra. Because if SCIENCE says it! What science? Science is your god and idol. lol

What about the ww2 planes in greenland?> Ice core bad for HOE.
http://creationwiki.org/WWII_airplanes_are_now_beneath_thousands_of_%22annual%22_ice_layers

Are you a troll?

: a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore inhabiting caves or hills

Yes.

How does uniformitarianism not apply to this thread? We are talking about dating, so the fundemental aspect of radiometric dating is based on a religious worldview. Your religiousity scares me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Chiroptera, posted 08-19-2007 3:15 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2007 7:42 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 08-19-2007 7:48 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 78 by kbertsche, posted 08-19-2007 10:28 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 70 of 94 (417164)
08-19-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 7:31 PM


Re: Question,
Another content free post.

Please address a prior post per Forum Rule 4:

Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

And bear in mind Rule 10:

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

Please limit your remarks to radiometric dating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 7:31 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 8:29 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 71 of 94 (417167)
08-19-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 7:31 PM


Re: Question,
Ok, again with the wording hoopla.

Yes, your posts basically are. It will be interesting to see whether you are capable of making an argument based on facts and logic, or whether disposable one-liners are all you have.

-

uniformitarianism has been verified?

Sure has. Every prediction made in geology, evolutionary biology, cosmology and the like is based on the assumption of the laws of physics and natural processes behaving as we understand them. So, tests of geologic, evolutionary, and cosmologic theories are tests of uniformitarianism. And so, every time a prediction is actually observed to be confirmed, the uniformitarian assumption is confirmed.

-

What about the ww2 planes in greenland?

What about them?


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 7:31 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 8:18 PM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 73 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 8:23 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 72 of 94 (417174)
08-19-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Chiroptera
08-19-2007 7:48 PM


Re: Question,
What about the ww2 planes in greenland?

What about them?

So by this logic how would you know which ice rings came from what glacier if I were to say mix them up? The argument from talk.orgins proves nothing in fact it makes little rebuttal.

Response 1. Is a red herring. The method of dating isn't in question. The fact that airplanes 50 years ago would date to millions of years is the question.

Response 2. I agree with the top half. Yes the planes were buried under snow. The fact they only take samples from "stable ice fields" is erroneous, explain to me how antartica isn't an active glacier. And in the last sentence its uniformitarianism all over again. How do they know that it's always been like that? Short answer: they don't

Response 3. Couldn't be melt layers ;) that would ruin the theory. wait...., they are melt layers! The assumption is that it's summer/winter etc., not hot/cold.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 08-19-2007 7:48 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2007 9:48 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 77 by kbertsche, posted 08-19-2007 10:10 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Chiroptera, posted 08-19-2007 11:15 PM Ihategod has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 73 of 94 (417175)
08-19-2007 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Chiroptera
08-19-2007 7:48 PM


Re: Question,
Yes, your posts basically are. It will be interesting to see whether you are capable of making an argument based on facts and logic, or whether disposable one-liners are all you have.

argument ad hominem. STAY ON TOPIC or else molbiochick will FREAK OUT!

Sure has. Every prediction made in geology, evolutionary biology, cosmology and the like is based on the assumption of the laws of physics and natural processes behaving as we understand them. So, tests of geologic, evolutionary, and cosmologic theories are tests of uniformitarianism. And so, every time a prediction is actually observed to be confirmed, the uniformitarian assumption is confirmed.

First, whateva! That's assumptions on assumption on assumptions. I could predict the future of a character if I was writing the book. Means nothing.
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation.

evidence please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 08-19-2007 7:48 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 74 of 94 (417178)
08-19-2007 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by molbiogirl
08-19-2007 7:42 PM


Re: Question,

Another content free post.

Please address a prior post per Forum Rule 4:

Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

And bear in mind Rule 10:

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

Please limit your remarks to radiometric dating.

Why you run your mouth-fingers, your also not on topic. MODS HELP! IS SHE A MOD??! THEN WHY IS SHE ACTING LIKE ONE!?

I would like to introduce you to a relating topic. HERE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2007 7:42 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by AdminPD, posted 08-19-2007 8:38 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 75 of 94 (417180)
08-19-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 8:29 PM


Argue Position
Vashgun,

Members wouldn't have to point out the Forum Guidelines if you were abiding by them.

Per the Forum Guidelines: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

Argue the position, not the person.

Clean up your act if you wish to be a welcome addition to this board.

Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.

Thank you Purple


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 8:29 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017