Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2018 12:24 PM
259 online now:
Aussie, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ramoss, ringo, Stile, Tangle (7 members, 252 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,382 Year: 15,205/29,783 Month: 1,149/1,502 Week: 147/492 Day: 21/40 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5349
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 241 of 312 (502605)
03-12-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 1:40 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
Don't think you've been involved, first hand, in more involved in scientific research than me, cause it's not likely.

Thirty years of it since my PhD from Ohio State in chemistry is, indeed, all I've got. Don't pull "mine is bigger than yours" on the internet, Sky - it often won't work.

I'll see you over at the thread I linked to.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:40 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 242 of 312 (502607)
03-12-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 1:05 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
No they aren't. Just ratios and theories about the ratios.

Until you can show how these theories are wrong the dates stand.

For example, when zircons form the exclude lead and incorporate uranium. This is due the charge of both lead and uranium. It is the same process that pushes salt out of water when ice forms. When we find lead in zircons it can only be due to one thing, the decay of uranium into lead. Since we know the half life of uranium isotopes we can use the ratio of uranium to lead to calculate when the zircon formed. Can you please explain why this method does not work?

As far as I know, no lava flows have produced accurate "creation" dates of the rock formed.

You learn something new every day.

"In the early afternoon of August 24, 79 CE, Mt Vesuvius erupted violently, sending hot ash flows speeding down its flanks. These flows buried and destroyed Pompeii and other nearby Roman cities. We know the exact day of this eruption because Pliny the Younger carefully recorded the event. In 1997 a team of scientists from the Berkeley Geochronology Center and the University of Naples decided to see if the 40Ar/39Ar method of radiometric dating could accurately measure the age of this very young (by geological standards) volcanic material. They separated sanidine crystals from a sample of one of the ash flows. Incremental heating experiments on 12 samples of sanidine yielded 46 data points that resulted in an isochron age of 1925 +/- 94 years. The actual age of the flow in 1997 was 1918 years. Is this just a coincidence? No it is the result of extremely careful analyses using a technique that works."--G. Brent Dalrymple, "Radiometric Dating Does Work!", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 2000, Vol. 20:3, pg. 14-19.
source

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:05 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 769 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 243 of 312 (502608)
03-12-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Sarawak
03-12-2009 12:01 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Hello Sarawak,

When you think of an answer to your question, please contribute to my thread here, thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Sarawak, posted 03-12-2009 12:01 PM Sarawak has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 244 of 312 (502609)
03-12-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 1:31 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
Last Tuesday is a Christian punk band hailing from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Not my style. But keep tossing those labels. Maybe one will stick Dude.

Is there a christian band named "Omphalos"? Just curious.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:31 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 245 of 312 (502611)
03-12-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Sarawak
03-12-2009 12:01 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Has Kelly changed her mind? No.

Kelly has made it quite apparent that evidence will not sway him/her. Kelly asserts that no transitional fossils exist. So what does Kelly do when transitional fossils are presented? Repeats the claim that no transitionals exist.

This is exactly what there is no science in creation science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Sarawak, posted 03-12-2009 12:01 PM Sarawak has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 4:13 PM Taq has not yet responded

Dman
Member (Idle past 2938 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 246 of 312 (502612)
03-12-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 1:40 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
quote:
Yawn...read it all before. I OBSERVE that even written documentation based on LAB experiments can be adjusted to result in what the researcher wants to see for a result. Don't think you've been involved, first hand, in more involved in scientific research than me, cause it's not likely.

This is very strange. Are you accusing all scientists of tinkering with test results?

For someone with unquestionable authority in scientific research, you do not come off that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:40 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:52 PM Dman has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5971
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 247 of 312 (502613)
03-12-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Stile
03-12-2009 7:55 AM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
Hi Stile,

Stile writes:

Or, are you going to argue that this is incorrect?

Why would I argue that if somebody had two marbles in one hand and two marbles in the other hand and he put them all in one hand that he would not have four marbles in one hand?

Stile writes:

That's the entire purpose of science. To phrase questions and make progress in such a way that it is insane to argue against. Because it simply must be.

You mean like my statement.

The universe has always existed in some form or it began to exist?

Stile writes:

I didn't read their minds. I read their statements. I'm sure you've heard of the Wedge Document where they clearly state that their world view is going to be influencing their conclusions.

Only here on EvC have I heard about the Wedge Document. I don't care anything about it.

It is not my Bible.

I did read a lot of Dawkins statements of his world view.

Stile writes:

This is quite easily shown to be false.

Stile says:

quote:
Using standard mathematics (and anything greater than a base-4 system): 2+2=4

But you did not give the base system either was using.

This is what you said.

Stile writes:

Two people can start with the same information (2+2) and end up with differing conclusions (4 or say... 5). But one of them is wrong.

But if you take 4 quarts of water and pour them into a gallon jug which holds four quarts.

You do not have 4 quarts of water in the gallon jug.

Stile writes:

All I said was that the transitional fossils I linked to show a very clear and obvious progression from the picture I showed to modern day horses.

But with the new revised progression by the National Museum they don't show an obvious clear progression.

Source

Stile writes:

Phooey. All I was hoping for was honest discussion... better luck next creation scientist, I suppose.

You must have missed my post in Message 42 where I was responding to Ned, concerning what I thought about CS fundamentalists.

I am not fond of those who preach CS or ID. In fact I think they have done God a great disservice as I think many churches have.

But when 2 scientist, one believing in evolution and one creation look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, who is to say which one is correct, or if either is correct?

There are many great scientist of the past that because of their world view came to conclusions that we now know was wrong.

But you want to exempt today's scientist of the possibility of being wrong.

The day could come when everything we consider as almost a proven fact is overturned, then what?

Like this quote from Richard Dawkins.

quote:
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 7:55 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:07 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 257 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 3:40 PM ICANT has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 248 of 312 (502618)
03-12-2009 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by ICANT
03-12-2009 2:38 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
But when 2 scientist, one believing in evolution and one creation look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, who is to say which one is correct, or if either is correct?

The evidence says.

Going back to your marble experiment . . .

The fourist states that if you add two marbles to two marbles that you will have four. The sixist claims that you will have six. You then do the experiment. Lo and behold, you count four marbles. The fourist claims that the predictions made by the theory of four have been met, so the theory of four is a well supported theory. The sixist claims that four marbles does not indicate that there could not be six, and there is still the chance that God removed two marbles when we weren't looking. Therefore, the results of the experiment are consistent with sixist science.

Which do you think is the correct interpretation of the experiment, and why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 2:38 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:22 PM Taq has responded
 Message 261 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 3:56 PM Taq has responded

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 249 of 312 (502621)
03-12-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Vacate
03-12-2009 1:20 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
"Welcome to EVC Sky-Writing, you may be glad to know there are other Last-tuesdayists who frequent this board. I am sure you will feel at home."

Holy-Cow! (As a Muslim/Christian might say) Your reference to "Last-Tuesday" was from Gods mind to yours. It actually WAS last Tuesday when my boss came up to me and implored my to use a different tool because I was getting the results he wanted to see. Never mind that the tool I use had been producing spectacular results up until that morning. He wanted to use a much more complicated tool that I didn't choose to use due to lack of process feedback.

On that particular day, one of the wires had shorted out on a static controller and the results were all over the place from minute to minute. He blamed my "poor choice" of tools, where as it was ACTUALLY the conditions that had changed.

I DID begin using HIS tool of choice.
He's the boss and one must pick ones battles.

How exactly like a geologist might feel....especially if there is reduced financial gain unless "the boss/your peers/the media" likes your pet theories. I do so love when Science "proves" the Creationist model to better fit the facts. Though they don't come right out and say that. Ya have to understand the implications of Quick Creation and the stories in the New Testament flesh that out a bit.


- Sky-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Vacate, posted 03-12-2009 1:20 PM Vacate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Larni, posted 03-12-2009 3:17 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 254 by Dman, posted 03-12-2009 3:35 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 259 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:41 PM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 269 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-12-2009 4:27 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3961
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 250 of 312 (502622)
03-12-2009 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 3:14 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
Let me guess:

You're some kind of engineer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:14 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 251 of 312 (502623)
03-12-2009 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Taq
03-12-2009 3:07 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
The marble experiment is showing results in real time.

The Creationist says somebody engineered the marbles to be round to .01 thousands of an inch and placed the color accent stripe in the middle. The "Realist" says it all happened by chance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:07 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:27 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 256 by Dman, posted 03-12-2009 3:40 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 270 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-12-2009 4:31 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 252 of 312 (502625)
03-12-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 3:22 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
The marble experiment is showing results in real time.

Which interpretation is supported by those results?

The Creationist says somebody engineered the marbles to be round to .01 thousands of an inch and placed the color accent stripe in the middle. The "Realist" says it all happened by chance.

A "Realist" would say that they were made by humans, not a supernatural deity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:22 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by rueh, posted 03-12-2009 3:33 PM Taq has responded

rueh
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 253 of 312 (502627)
03-12-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Taq
03-12-2009 3:27 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
Taq writes:

A "Realist" would say that they were made by humans, not a supernatural deity.

Ah but the human who created the marble, was created by god. So conversly god also made the marble.


'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:27 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:36 PM rueh has responded

Dman
Member (Idle past 2938 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 254 of 312 (502629)
03-12-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 3:14 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
quote:
How exactly like a geologist might feel....especially if there is reduced financial gain unless "the boss/your peers/the media" likes your pet theories.

How exactly do you know a geologist might feel this way? Applying your personal problem with your boss to any other realm of science, is just, well, stupid.

By your logic any scientist with a boss, is not doing proper science and "fudging" the results. Get real.

And you misunderstand peer review, it is actually to try and take apart your conclusion of an experiment. So just giving them what they want with fudged answers, will reveal as much. Nice try though.

quote:
I do so love when Science "proves" the Creationist model to better fit the facts.

How does the creationist model better fit the facts? By the way, what is the creation model?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:14 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 255 of 312 (502630)
03-12-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by rueh
03-12-2009 3:33 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
Ah but the human who created the marble, was created by god. So conversly god also made the marble.

Just as God made two marbles disappear so that 2 marbles plus 2 marbles is actually six.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by rueh, posted 03-12-2009 3:33 PM rueh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by rueh, posted 03-12-2009 3:40 PM Taq has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018