|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation science II | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
quote: That was my understanding as well - the copyright statement that was copied to this thread mentioned that there was "no fair use waiver" or some such, but that's not the way the law works. No waiver is required for fair use - just as you're allowed to whistle a copyrighted song on the street regardless of what the intellectual property holder wants, you're allowed to quote passages of a creative work to discuss that work regardless of the author's desire.
quote: quote: And most importantly:
quote: The author of the work does not get any say in whether fair use applies or not. It always applies to copyrighted works, and you cannot disclaim fair use, unless a binding contract is used. Whether the quotations from Creationist websites used earlier constitute fair use, well, I don't know. Fair use is decided on a case by case basis (much like the "reasonable person" standard used in things like sexual harassment cases). For that, I would say that this is the most relevant bit:
quote: Debate over a given "scientific" paper as is done on this forum certainly qualifies as stimulating creativity for the enrichment of the general public, and as this forum doesn't have any advertising and makes no profit, copied sections clearly isn't being used for personal profit. I think we're safe, regardless of whether Creationist webhosts tell us not to ever quote their drivel for discussion. But then, I'm not a lawyer, and those quotes were all from the Wikipedia "Fair Use" article. Take with a grain of salt, as always.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
"That is simply UNTRUE! Creationists nearly always DISAGREE that, for example, the literal and figurative mountains of evidence for a planet that's several thousands of millions of years old is even evidence at all!"
You are failing to provide evidence of disagreement there. I suppose you disagree. Point made. Even that fact, we don't agree on. Actually, rocks have no dates stamped on them. When they were formed is speculation based on observable processes. The conditions they formed under is speculation as well as the date. Since "mass" effects "time" then "time" may have been distorted as well during the rocks formation. Says Eisenstein anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I ask myself the same thing. I think we are too aggressive in our dealings with new creationist members, and pile on in too great a numbers. I'm not sure what the board can do about this really?
This is probably off topic, anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Says Eisenstein anyway. Sergei Eisenstein? I thought he was a filmmaker. Ralph Eisenstein, the butcher, probably never said anything like that. Welcome to EvC, Sky-Writing! I hope you enjoy yourself here!
Actually, rocks have no dates stamped on them. That's true. The dates are stamped inside (igneous) rocks as ratios of several different isotopes. We have a "dates and dating" forum here where you can learn all about it. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"That is simply UNTRUE! Creationists nearly always DISAGREE that, for example, the literal and figurative mountains of evidence for a planet that's several thousands of millions of years old is even evidence at all!" You are failing to provide evidence of disagreement there. You need evidence that creationists disagree with geologists? I suggest that you read up on creationism a little.
Actually, rocks have no dates stamped on them. When they were formed is speculation based on observable processes. The conditions they formed under is speculation as well as the date. You are wrong. You should read up on geology as well as creationism.
Since "mass" effects "time" then "time" may have been distorted as well during the rocks formation. Says Eisenstein anyway. Who is this Eisenstein chap and why does he talk such drivel? It sounds like he's some sort of drooling halfwit who's heard of Einstein's theory of general relativity and is trying to twist it into a bullshit creationist argument. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
I was thinking that the point was that Creationists disagree among each other. I guess that wasn't the point. Creationists don't have strong disagreements about what Geologists turn up in their data. Usually about the conclusions reached.
You are welcome to theorize on my drool, but that's a bit off topic for me. Love the name calling, by the way. Shows who I'm investing my time reading.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Actually, rocks have no dates stamped on them. When they were formed is speculation based on observable processes. The conditions they formed under is speculation as well as the date. Since "mass" effects "time" then "time" may have been distorted as well during the rocks formation. Says Eisenstein anyway. Na Eisenstein, nyet. Einstein ("monolith") auch nicht. Sondern Schwarzschild. (pardon the mixing of Russian and German) The formula for gravitational time dilation is given at Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia as:
quote:2GM/c2 is known as the Schwarzschild radius, which for the earth is 9mm. So, with r = 6 371 000 000 mm, t0 = 99.9999998587 % of tf. Ie, time within the earth's gravitational field passes only extremely slightly more slowly than outside of it. It would take close measurements of the difference between atomic clocks placed outside our gravitational field (or at least partially outside it) and one on the ground to detect any difference. BTW, that difference and their speeds is factored into the GPS satellites' calculations, since time is an important factor in their navigational calculations. But then, the rocks have never left the earth's gravitational field and we are within the same field so time has passed at the same rate for both us and the rocks. So your attempt at a claim is moot. Welcome to the forum. You should always remember to check your sources and to do the math. Edited by dwise1, : Russki Edited by dwise1, : it doesn't like Russian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
"The dates are stamped inside (igneous) rocks as ratios of several different isotopes."
No they aren't. Just ratios and theories about the ratios. We can only date things accurately to the beginning of written documentation. And even that's assuming what was written is accurate. The rest is historical speculation based on processes that may or may not be duplicated accurately. As far as I know, no lava flows have produced accurate "creation" dates of the rock formed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
"But then, the rocks have never left the earth's gravitational field and we are within the same field so time has passed at the same rate for both us and the rocks. So your attempt at a claim is moot."
Don't bother doing the math unless you've been watching those rocks and documenting the conditions yourself. Because I won't accept your assumptions that you are so sure of. It's history, after all. History is known to be written more by the writer than by the facts. I'm sure you would use that logic against MY sources of information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4601 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
"I ask myself the same thing. I think we are too aggressive in our dealings with new creationist members, and pile on in too great a numbers. I'm not sure what the board can do about this really?"
I find the desire to pounce...very revealing as to the security of ones belief system. I don't recall using such tactics. I think I'll use that observation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
No they aren't. Just ratios and theories about the ratios. We can only date things accurately to the beginning of written documentation. You are not just mistaken, but spectacularly mistaken, Sky. Click on http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) ,read a bit, and then we can discuss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Last Tuesday is a Christian punk band hailing from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Not my style. But keep tossing those labels. Maybe one will stick Dude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
"You are not just mistaken, but spectacularly mistaken."
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member (Idle past 456 days) Posts: 428 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
I think we're safe, regardless of whether Creationist webhosts tell us not to ever quote their drivel for discussion. I believe you are correct. The creationist attempts to misrepresent copyright law are as dishonest as their science. Surprising? I think not. Capt.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024