Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in Schools
joz
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 116 (4768)
02-16-2002 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peter
02-15-2002 6:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
I don't know about constitutions ... we don't have one in the UK.

I think we do but we don`t make such a deal out of it...
(I think you have to have one to be a country).....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 02-15-2002 6:16 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 7:53 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 116 (4800)
02-16-2002 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by KingPenguin
02-16-2002 7:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
you guys dont have guns either, i think your government is about to make you all into slaves.

You can have shotguns (not pump action though) and rifles (for stag in the highlands I think).
Up untill the mid 90`s (95 or 96) it was possible to own handguns (legaly) in Britain, Then a psycho walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland and shot several small children to death....
Our government decided to ban handguns completely, they are now illegal, there were few objections (from sports shooters not the general public) this is because we place a higher value on the lives of small children than the ability to revolt against HM`s government...
By the way who are you lot trying to fool anyway, back in the 18th century everyone having guns did provide a check on government now it all depends on the military`s loyalty, your average 9mm handgun doesn`t have much effect against a tank or a helicopter gunship...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 7:53 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 116 (5323)
02-22-2002 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Theo
02-22-2002 6:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
1)Radio decay methods are based on circular reasoning...
2)...because when one submits the rocks around the fossils for aging, the lab will not process the sample without identification of the geologic age....
3)....then it processes several samples to yield the age expected....
4)....and because no reports of the original mother/daughter ratio are available. It is like a faucet dripping into a glass of water. You can accurately measure the current drip rate and how much water is currently in the glass but you don't know how much water was in the glass to begin with, therefore you can't tell how long the glass has been dripped into.
5)As well there are evidences of a Young earth I will get to later

1)Radio decay? Radiometric decay I`ve heard of whats radio decay?
2)Possibly so that they can tell you hey you think this rock is only X years old but you want to use method Y on it and Y only works for samples older than nX (where n is greater than 1)... Just a thought....
3)They make multiple runs because nuclear decay is a random process hence you must take multiple pieces of data find sample population mean and sigma use derived values to iteratively remove statistical fliers then calculate true population mean and sigma which gives you a date and an error measurement...
I`d be more suspicious of someone that took a single data point as the answer than someone who took a wide range of results processed them in the fashion above and arrived at a statisticaly valid result with confidence limits....
4)Relative abundances are fairly constant actually....
5)better bring them out then because your attacks on "radio dating" (sic) are fairly inane....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Theo, posted 02-22-2002 6:29 PM Theo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Theo, posted 02-22-2002 10:14 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 116 (5334)
02-22-2002 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Theo
02-22-2002 10:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
Joz and Gene
First, I must say I am pleased with tone of your responses (except for my 'radio decay' mistake Joz, come on you knew exactly what I meant, by your own standard, you now had better be perfect in your posts from now on!)

Sorry I ate something that dissagreed with me yesterday and have been a little bit waspish since.....
Would you care to comment on points 2 and 3?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Theo, posted 02-22-2002 10:14 PM Theo has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 116 (5368)
02-23-2002 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Theo
02-22-2002 10:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
1)Hence my glass of water in the sink analogy-unless one knows that the glass was empty or how much water was orignally in the glass then it is impossible to determine from the amount in the glass when discovered and the drip rate how long the glass had been there. Unfortunately, radiometric dating has been known to assume the glass was completely empty, again an unkown.
2)As well, it is unreasonable to send in over ten samples to labs and then pick the one or two samples that line up with geologic age assigned apriori! If creationists used that kind of methodology you would reject that at face value.

1)A better analogy would be a tank of water with a very thin pipe leading from the bottom to another tank with an even thinner pipe to the drain....
In equilibrium the two tanks are empty and all water is down the drain....
If water is added to the top tank it flows down to the second tank where the level rises, with a knowledge of the mathematics of the system and accurate observations of the levels in both tanks it is possible to derive the amount of water initialy added to the system and the time since that event....
In short your analogy is inadequate as it is the ratio of the volume of water in the first tank to the volume in the present tank that allows us to date the system....
2)I already answered this in point 3) of an above post, reposting:
3)They make multiple runs because nuclear decay is a random process hence you must take multiple pieces of data find sample population mean and sigma use derived values to iteratively remove statistical fliers then calculate true population mean and sigma which gives you a date and an error measurement...
I`d be more suspicious of someone that took a single data point as the answer than someone who took a wide range of results processed them in the fashion above and arrived at a statisticaly valid result with confidence limits....
This is why they take multiple samples not as you seem to believe in order to falaciously present a contrived result.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 02-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Theo, posted 02-22-2002 10:14 PM Theo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Theo, posted 03-07-2002 10:10 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 116 (5766)
02-28-2002 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by TrueCreation
02-28-2002 12:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Now obviously you would not consider these ones would you? :
YLT-
Psalm 77:18
The voice of Thy thunder [is] in the spheres, Lightnings have lightened the world, The earth hath trembled, yea, it shaketh.
21st Century NKJV-
Amos 9:6 Amos 9 Amos 9:5-7 It is He that buildeth His spheres in the heaven, and hath founded His troop on the earth. He that calleth for the waters of the sea and poureth them out upon the face of the earth the LORD is His name.

I hate to mention this bud but mention of spheres in a cosmological context has connotations of the ptolmaic model (from which we get the term music of the spheres)....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by TrueCreation, posted 02-28-2002 12:15 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 116 (6270)
03-07-2002 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Theo
03-07-2002 10:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
The argument is not a single data point but taking multiple samples and selecting the one that agrees with your apriori assigned value and discarding the rest.
How does this even qualify as a response?
My post reads:
"They make multiple runs because nuclear decay is a random process hence you must take multiple pieces of data find sample population mean and sigma use derived values to iteratively remove statistical fliers then calculate true population mean and sigma which gives you a date and an error measurement...
I`d be more suspicious of someone that took a single data point as the answer than someone who took a wide range of results processed them in the fashion above and arrived at a statisticaly valid result with confidence limits....
This is why they take multiple samples not as you seem to believe in order to falaciously present a contrived result....."
It explains why it is necessary to take multiple samples....
It states a possible mechanism for statistically determining which results are valid parts of the distribution and which are fliers...
And yet your response is equivalent to "They take multiple samples and only publish the single one that fits their expectations"....
Theo for your own good follow the following steps before posting anything else on this subject....
1)Learn to read...
2)Go and take a course in statistics...
Because that last post only succeeded in making you look like a complete and utter muppet.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Theo, posted 03-07-2002 10:10 PM Theo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 3:30 AM joz 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