Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   101 evidences for a young age...
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 91 of 135 (518285)
08-04-2009 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by wirkkalaj
08-04-2009 7:48 AM


Re: Saddle up yer Tricerotops Pardner
Hi, Wirkkalaj.
Welcome to EvC!
I think you'll notice that the concept of a dragon is not the same in different parts of the world.
The Chinese dragon, for instance, is described as having the head of a camel, the antlers of a deer, the body of a snake and the claws of a rooster. The scales are actually compared to fish scales, not reptile scales.
It doesn't coincide in any way with dinosaurs, or with the dragons of European folklore, other than it looks like a big reptile to people who don't know any better.
-----
Therianthropy (mixing human and animal traits) is another common motif in beast lore around the world: centaurs, werewolves, many of the Egyptian gods, Ganesh, kitsune, Amerindian animism, etc. In fact, I think it is more widespread than dragon myths. Would you consider this widespread mythological motif as evidence of the actuality of therianthropy?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 7:48 AM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 92 of 135 (518286)
08-04-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Coyote
08-04-2009 11:30 PM


Re: reality testing
And a rattle snake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2009 11:30 PM Coyote has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5334 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 93 of 135 (518839)
08-08-2009 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Coyote
08-04-2009 10:07 PM


Re: reality testing
The problem is that creationists are creationists first and scientists second. They abandon the scientific method and instead practice religious apologetics using their scientific backgrounds.
Charles Darwin believed in Evolution long before he had a method or technique to test or verify the age of the Earth, and thus began his search for Dating Methods which coincided with his beliefs. It is the same with a lot of Evolutionists (and I'll concede, with a lot of Creationists) It is your "belief" in an old/young Earth that drives people to find an agreeable dating system or discard contradictory ones. The Earth has to be Billions of years old in order for the Evolutionary hypothesis to work, and certainly affects your starting assumptions and axioms, just as it does Creationists.
"They are Evolutionists/Old Earth first and Scientists second".
Just as with yourself! I'm positive that you did not know every fact and particular of Evolution before you made your decision to believe in it? Who can? We are all guilty of making up our minds (perhaps pre-maturely) based on the limited information we have at hand (along with personal experience). Then, we use our belief and knowledge to interpret the evidence around us. If we waited for all of the information to come into light, noone would never make a decision because it can never be fully known (Exception: until we can travel through time)!
When one adheres to these beliefs, one ceases to do science.
See Charles Darwin comment above. I don't discount everything he did just because he had a set of beliefs, wholly unfounded at the time, that he tried to set out and prove.
Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian and held to a similar belief. Shall we discount all of his work because of it?
Besides evolutionists already have a similar belief "that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved".
With a starting presumption like that, no wonder you think all Christians are morons! Evolutionists, first above all else, need to examine their own starting beliefs and then admit and be aware of any bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2009 10:07 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-08-2009 9:43 PM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 08-08-2009 11:37 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 94 of 135 (518848)
08-08-2009 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 6:58 PM


Re: reality testing
wirkkalaj writes:
It is your "belief" in an old/young Earth that drives people to find an agreeable dating system or discard contradictory ones.
No, I'm afraid you are drawing a false parallel there, between people whose "belief" supports an old Earth, and people whose belief "supports" a young Earth.
The former people discard other beliefs and explanations when there is no real data -- no observational basis -- to sustain those beliefs and explanations, and especially when those beliefs and explanations are in direct conflict with reliably observed evidence. They do not discard the observations (the evidence that must be explained by a coherent and accurately predictive theory).
The latter people discard or ignore evidence when it conflicts with their chosen beliefs and explanations.
In other words, the crucial difference between these two groups of people is this: for "old Earth" folks, the belief has to conform to the evidence, whereas for the "young Earth" folks, the evidence has to conform to the belief.
It's very important to understand that the motivations for "old Earth beliefs" did not arise from Darwin's consideration of the time depth needed for evolution to be a viable theory; they arose from the careful study of geology, astronomy, physics and radioactivity. Our current "old Earth beliefs" are the necessary logical outcome of reconciling the available evidence from all these domains.
The honestly scientific estimations for the age of the Earth have undergone numerous adjustments, based on evidence, since the 18th century. There has been no fundamental change in the evidence itself, and none of it has been discarded or ignored. Each new revision to the estimated age is tested against all available evidence. Any discrepancies or conflicts will lead to refining the explanation further, and/or revisiting and repeating observations to confirm whether they are accurate and reliable.
{AbE, to clarify:} It's both possible and desirable for older observations to be replaced or superseded by newer ones, using more careful controls, more accurate instruments, and more representative samples. This is especially valuable when new observations can reveal why the older ones were inadequate, leading to explanations that cover the old evidence as well as the new.
Regarding the Earth-age estimations among young-Earth believers, I'm not as familiar with the issues here, so I have to ask: What in particular are these estimates based on? How many different estimates have been proposed? How would you evaluate each one as to its "accuracy", if you were trying pick one as being "the most accurate"?
If your answer is "such accuracy doesn't matter", then your position is simply "ignorance is sufficient -- true knowledge of our world is unnecessary." If the answer involves reference to proper interpretation of Biblical text, then your position is "physical evidence must be ignored," and you will necessarily face the problem of divergent and irreconcilable interpretations of the Bible. I think it's rational and sensible to reject both of those positions.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : added a paragraph as noted.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 6:58 PM wirkkalaj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:33 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5334 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 95 of 135 (518850)
08-08-2009 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Otto Tellick
08-08-2009 9:43 PM


Re: reality testing
The former people discard other beliefs and explanations when there is no real data -- no observational basis -- to sustain those beliefs and explanations, and especially when those beliefs and explanations are in direct conflict with reliably observed evidence. They do not discard the observations (the evidence that must be explained by a coherent and accurately predictive theory).
Firstly, any and all dating methods are not observable sciences. Aspects of each method happened in the past and are therefore not observable. Each method adheres to a set of assumptions that must be used. There's no getting around it. Where it's Carbon Dating, Potassium-Argon Dating, Uranium-lead dating etc.
1. How much of the element (C-14 etc.) was present when it started to decay or when it die? More or Less than in todays creatures/rocks? None?
They usually assume it's the same amount that creatures today have in our bodies. Fair enough assumption, but still an assumption and unobservable.
2. Is the rate of decay always constant? You may say yes for sure, and it very likely might be constant but it's still an assumption and unobservable.
3.The third assumption is if any of the element has or has not escaped out of the test subject? Perhaps from magnetic fields, or extreme heat/cold or other unknown variables that may affect the amount of element in the test subject. Who knows, but you can't know for sure and therefore it's still an assumption and unobservable.
The latter people discard or ignore evidence when it conflicts with their chosen beliefs and explanations.
Oh please! Carbon Dating issues arise all of the time that are discarded or ignored by Evolutionists. I could list numerous examples, but here's one. With their short 5,700-year half-life, carbon 14 atoms should not exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old.
The honestly scientific estimations for the age of the Earth have undergone numerous adjustments, based on evidence, since the 18th century. There has been no fundamental change in the evidence itself, and none of it has been discarded or ignored. Each new revision to the estimated age is tested against all available evidence. Any discrepancies or conflicts will lead to refining the explanation further, and/or revisiting and repeating observations to confirm whether they are accurate and reliable.
Well maybe in a million years and after a million more adjustments you guys will have the dates adjusted correctly!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-08-2009 9:43 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Theodoric, posted 08-08-2009 11:41 PM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 08-08-2009 11:41 PM wirkkalaj has replied
 Message 107 by pandion, posted 08-09-2009 12:37 AM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 96 of 135 (518851)
08-08-2009 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 6:58 PM


Re: reality testing
Charles Darwin believed in Evolution long before he had a method or technique to test or verify the age of the Earth, and thus began his search for Dating Methods which coincided with his beliefs. It is the same with a lot of Evolutionists (and I'll concede, with a lot of Creationists) It is your "belief" in an old/young Earth that drives people to find an agreeable dating system or discard contradictory ones. The Earth has to be Billions of years old in order for the Evolutionary hypothesis to work, and certainly affects your starting assumptions and axioms, just as it does Creationists.
"They are Evolutionists/Old Earth first and Scientists second".
Just as with yourself! I'm positive that you did not know every fact and particular of Evolution before you made your decision to believe in it? Who can? We are all guilty of making up our minds (perhaps pre-maturely) based on the limited information we have at hand (along with personal experience). Then, we use our belief and knowledge to interpret the evidence around us. If we waited for all of the information to come into light, noone would never make a decision because it can never be fully known (Exception: until we can travel through time)!
So? Darwin lived and did science a long time ago. We don't worship him, or his science. If the evidence shows otherwise, we accept that and move on.
And nothing you say changes the facts in any way.
This seems to be hard for creationists to understand, but scientists follow the evidence--not the person or authority figure. And, so far, the data supports the theory of evolution and an old earth.
You might not agree, but you have to rely on religious belief in your denial as the evidence does not support your position.
See Charles Darwin comment above. I don't discount everything he did just because he had a set of beliefs, wholly unfounded at the time, that he tried to set out and prove.
Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian and held to a similar belief. Shall we discount all of his work because of it?
Besides evolutionists already have a similar belief "that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved".
With a starting presumption like that, no wonder you think all Christians are morons! Evolutionists, first above all else, need to examine their own starting beliefs and then admit and be aware of any bias.
Because scientists make and use assumptions does not automatically mean those assumptions are wrong, as creationists like to imply. If the evidence didn't support those assumptions scientists would discard them in an instant! You just don't like them for religious reasons, and for the uncomfortable directions to which they lead.
And scientists have no set of overbearing "beliefs" as you like to portray. Scientists follow the evidence and evidence has a way of shredding beliefs.
This is why Creationists (note the capital "C") are so anti-science. If science is right, their beliefs are wrong.
But scientists don't care much if some hypothesis or even theory is modified by new data. That's what science is all about.
So don't bother telling us what science or assumptions Newton or Darwin followed. We're centuries past that now, with centuries of testing and, if necessary, modification.
That's the difference between science and religious belief. Science is able to change when new data arises.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 6:58 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 97 of 135 (518853)
08-08-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 11:33 PM


Re: reality testing
Do you really want to get into a debate about dating? The guys here know a lot about it. As a matter of fact one poster here makes a career out of it. Your arguments will be destroyed. You might want to look at, and if you are brave enough, contribute to this thread
EvC Forum: Radioactive carbon dating
I think you will find the discussion interesting and, if you are willing to read and understand science, informative. I look forward to watching responses to your posts. I think it is important that you post a similar post in that thread so that it does not stray off topic in this thread. That is if you really want to discuss this.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:33 PM wirkkalaj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:48 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 98 of 135 (518854)
08-08-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 11:33 PM


Re: reality testing
Oh please! Carbon Dating issues arise all of the time that are discarded or ignored by Evolutionists. I could list numerous examples, but here's one. With their short 5,700-year half-life, carbon 14 atoms should not exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old.
This is off topic here.
Please post this to one of the carbon 14 threads and I'll be happy to show you how you are wrong.
Here's the difference--I use carbon 14 dating a lot, and have both written and lectured on the subject. You just scan the creationist websites and accept the lies they tell you as fact.
Now, are you willing to accept my challenge on another thread?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:33 PM wirkkalaj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:52 PM Coyote has replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5334 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 99 of 135 (518855)
08-08-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
08-04-2009 6:17 PM


Re: reality testing
And yet none of the dragons or other depictions really look like an actual dinosaur. Please look again - closely - at the depictions you have posted and see if they accurately portray known dinosaurs.
This one is obvious, of course you'll probably just call it a hoax.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 08-04-2009 6:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 08-08-2009 11:48 PM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 103 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 12:01 AM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-09-2009 12:31 AM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2009 5:51 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 100 of 135 (518856)
08-08-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 11:42 PM


Dinosaur bones
Where are the bones?
If there are dinosaurs cavorting about with early man we should have a lot of bones around.
Where are they?
(See also message 81, above.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:42 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5334 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 101 of 135 (518857)
08-08-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Theodoric
08-08-2009 11:41 PM


Re: reality testing
I am not opposed to having my arguments destroyed. How else do we grow in our understanding.
"One man thinks he is right until another steps forward to speak"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Theodoric, posted 08-08-2009 11:41 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
wirkkalaj
Member (Idle past 5334 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009


Message 102 of 135 (518858)
08-08-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Coyote
08-08-2009 11:41 PM


Re: reality testing
Now, are you willing to accept my challenge on another thread?
Yes, I will accept. Perhaps we should start a new thread or something? I am probably not going to be on too much longer tonight, but I will respond tomorrow of course. Who shall start off with the first comment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 08-08-2009 11:41 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 12:01 AM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 08-09-2009 12:19 AM wirkkalaj has not replied
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 08-10-2009 9:58 AM wirkkalaj has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 103 of 135 (518859)
08-09-2009 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 11:42 PM


Re: reality testing
Ok I see two depictions of a large lizard like creature. One is ancient and one is modern. Do they resemble each other? Yes. Does this mean anything? No. I suppose the flying creatures are pterodactyls. Do you actually believe that people from that time period did not imagine dragons and such?
Therefore, if we follow this argument to its natural conclusion, anything depicted or imagined must be real.
Damn, I better get the garlic around my neck to stop the vampires.
All one has to do to debunk your wild ass ideas is to look at folklore. Folklore is full of nasty, mean, giant creatures. I do not know of any, even further back than Grendel, that actually existed.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:42 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 104 of 135 (518860)
08-09-2009 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 11:52 PM


Re: reality testing
Post your thoughts on the thread I referred to earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:52 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 105 of 135 (518864)
08-09-2009 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 11:52 PM


Re: reality testing
Yes, I will accept. Perhaps we should start a new thread or something? I am probably not going to be on too much longer tonight, but I will respond tomorrow of course. Who shall start off with the first comment?
There are several ongoing threads on carbon 14 dating. We probably should go with one of those.
Just post your previous comment there and I will respond. That will probably be easiest way to do this.
And thanks for being willing to debate the issue.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:52 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024