Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is Not Science
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 270 (7578)
03-21-2002 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 10:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I am well aware of all that TC,as you well know. What i am asking,and i would really like a clear answer,is why i SHOULD find YOUR explanation MORE plausible than the explanations given by geologists who spend their life working on the subject and who,in 99.9% of the case,arrive at an explanation VERY DIFFERENT from yours. Please tell me what piece of geological evidence the geologists are missing or have simply missinterpreted and how can i verify that they did..."
--Open up any Geology text-book and go to the index and find 'Uniformitarianism' or 'Gradualism' and read what it has to say about it, you will soon find that all of mainstream geology is dependent on its validity, and is an underlying assumption. So, let us consider catastrophism, and my hypothesis.
LUD:I understand all that...you do not ned to convince me that there is an underlying assumption in geology. But what i'm wondering is when exactly was that assumption proven wrong...and when are the geologists gonna be presented that evidence you have that the basis of their scientific field is completely in error? Isen't it possible that other people smarter than you or i have allready considered and REJECTED an hypothesis similar to yours? Why do you assume that Uniformitarianism is NOT grounded on solid observations? As for Catastrophisim,my experience in historical study leads me to believe that this concept is far more founded on myths than actual science. Many culture sought divine explanations to floods,tornadoes,droughts,quakes,volcanoes,ect. I see no reason that would lead me to conclude that christian catastrophisim is any more grounded in truth than mayan,Norse or greek catastrophisim.
--A hypothesis must have expectations and thus, evidence. So we look at the evidence. The evidence is actually very basic, in order for my hypothesis to be right, there must be gradual sea-floor spreading and subduction occuring though many magnitudes slower than today. There must be magnetic variation on a large scale from a frantic outer-core. The outer core from such an increase in heat from radioisotopic desintegration and no where for such energy to yet be released through hot-spots, rifts or troughs, would greatly increase the activity of massive eddy currents and convection processes which control characteristics and properties of the magnetosphere and polarity. There must be old mountain zones appearing as belts crossing southern continents if these are joined together in a certain way. Continents must be able to relatively fit together like a puzzle and sea-floor spreading diversion must complement it. Even known scientific concepts such as increasing heat must result in lower viscosities to complement and result in more rapid mantle convection. The reason that continents are not being eroded away from underneath but being built upon (with the exception of upwelling magma and hot-spots) must be explained, which is explained by decreased temperature and a 'burn out' of radionucleic energy and leakage of asthenospheric and core heat by volcanic eruptions and lava flows, sea floor spreading, hydrothermal vents, etc. Continental masses must be less dense than oceanic basalt.
LUD:yes,i have read your hypothesis several times and still,i've never seen you present me with evidence that those events DID occur in the fashion you described and assembled all the elements required at the time needed for them to occur.
--All of this data is complemented and well explained by my hypothesis, is there anything I may be missing?
LUD:Yes...evidence that those events began taking place 4500 years ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 10:10 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by KingPenguin, posted 03-21-2002 11:41 PM LudvanB has not replied
 Message 180 by TrueCreation, posted 03-25-2002 12:34 AM LudvanB has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 152 of 270 (7579)
03-21-2002 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Joe Meert
03-21-2002 11:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:

Sorry, but I've not heard such a load of mumbo-jumbp even from a schizophrenic. All you have done above is throw out a random selection of terminology in the hopes that something may fall into place and fool somebody who knows nothing of geology. Unfortunately, there are people on here who know a bit more about the subject than you do and will not be fooled by this type of random technobabble obfuscation. NONE of what you said above makes sense!

you did nothing there but make yourself into a jerk and point out to me again that evolution is nonsense. You didnt even bother to back your alligations up with any evidence, you just said no. well evolution isnt a religion from what i know so back up your claims.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Joe Meert, posted 03-21-2002 11:21 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 153 of 270 (7581)
03-21-2002 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by edge
03-21-2002 11:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
Yes, could you pass the arc soup?

you have got to be the single worst debater ever. your not going to convince any creationists with attitude and disrespect like that. your better off just not saying anything, but go ahead and reply to me with some more whines. ill probably skip over this thread the next time im come in.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by edge, posted 03-21-2002 11:22 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by edge, posted 03-22-2002 12:12 AM KingPenguin has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 154 of 270 (7582)
03-21-2002 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by LudvanB
03-21-2002 11:26 PM


thanks for such a good response to TC, Ludvan. some of these evolutionists are getting unbearable. Ill give my two cents on it and here it comes. In science everything is assumed to be probable and thus theyre are a dozens of explanations of life and of death. We dont really know for absolute what causes them but science does give us a very good approximation. Science also only provides a limited description of the past in that it doesnt measure actual time. Christianity doesn't explain anything either because if you didnt have to overcome obstacles to be saved then there really wouldnt be much point to living here on earth. maybe you dont have to have faith in Jesus to get into heaven but we need to believe that we need to have total faith so that we can accomplish something here on earth. Thats the basic drive behind all relgions, motivate your people. Christianity is right in my eyes because its based on love rather than some of the other religions that are based on hate and control. We dont believe for the sake of believing, we believe because we love and we know that we need to be loved and share love.
plz try to make sense of this.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 03-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 11:26 PM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by nator, posted 03-24-2002 8:04 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 155 of 270 (7587)
03-22-2002 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by KingPenguin
03-21-2002 11:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
you have got to be the single worst debater ever. your not going to convince any creationists with attitude and disrespect like that. your better off just not saying anything, but go ahead and reply to me with some more whines. ill probably skip over this thread the next time im come in.
Who said I was trying to convince creationists of anything? All I was pointing out was that if TC's rant were correct, it would have sterilized all life on earth. If I offended I am truly sorry, but maybe some folks need to lighten up around here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by KingPenguin, posted 03-21-2002 11:31 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by KingPenguin, posted 03-22-2002 12:24 AM edge has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 156 of 270 (7590)
03-22-2002 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by edge
03-22-2002 12:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
Who said I was trying to convince creationists of anything? All I was pointing out was that if TC's rant were correct, it would have sterilized all life on earth. If I offended I am truly sorry, but maybe some folks need to lighten up around here.
thanks. yeah we all are a bit too serious but showin disrespect is going to far. i try my hardest not to, but you can get pretty angry.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by edge, posted 03-22-2002 12:12 AM edge has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 270 (7591)
03-22-2002 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by KingPenguin
03-21-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
1)(KP)...See now youve lost credibility, dont say stuff like that. Having faith is having faith. its not like science where you can be lazy and go off of things you can observe.
2)(mark24)Time is relative & easily altered? LOL! Would you accept this argument if I presented it against a 6,000 year old earth evidence? Not a chance! Even if you CAN show that time can be altered under 1G (earths gravity) by 1,000,000%, which I sincerely doubt, the even larger numbers simply make your position even more untenable.
(KP)okay einsteins wrong your right.

1)Damm the secrets out boys we`re all going to have to get proper jobs as missionaries and stop lazing around all day doing science....
Science is LAZY?????
Try it sometime KP it may surprise you, its actually quite demanding....
2)Oooops your first attempt at being a lazy scienticic person and you screwed up already.... Time proceeds at exactly the rate we measure here on Earth under acceleration of 1G as per the equation:
(delta t1 - delta t2)/delta t = (Phi2 - Phi1)/c2.....
So according to Einstein it can`t be done thus your statement of "okay einsteins wrong your right" in response to Marks statement of "Even if you CAN show that time can be altered under 1G (earths gravity) by 1,000,000%, which I sincerely doubt" is quite interesting given that his position is based on Einsteins theory of general relativity...
Oh and P.S Mark your right to be skeptical if GR holds time can`t be made to go faster under a constant acceleration.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by KingPenguin, posted 03-21-2002 11:16 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3216 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 158 of 270 (7615)
03-22-2002 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 8:02 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Oh G whiz, well your new here so I won't get skeptical about the skeptics. The water is in the oceans silly. And it came from polar glacier masses.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Hi, yes I am new to this board but I am not new to the debate. I have been going at it to varying degrees for about 20 years now.
As to the water, there is not enough in the polar ice caps to cover all of the land masses. I have this from a number of reputable sources, one was from a grad school friend who was in teh space physics department and was working on plate techtonics and models that could be applied to extrasolar bodies. Here is a different source that outlines the , prety much, most up to date data concerning the earths past,
http://www.ps.ucl.ac.uk/~awayne/polar/geology.html
so you see, even with plate movements and no caps there is still uncovered land mass, and a good deal of it as well
.
There was a model put out by a researcher at Los Alamos that has been used to demonstrate fast movement of the plates by creationsts, problem is that some model also demonstrates the slow movement postulated by geologists who are not young earth creationists. It also fails (the creationist model) to account for the massive offgassing which would accompany the fast movement model and pretty much give us a Venuvian atmosphere and the extinction of all non-bacterial life on this planet.
Oh well, I have a great deal of work to do today so please consider this my answer to your reply on the other thread as well. Got to run.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 8:02 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by TrueCreation, posted 03-25-2002 12:53 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 159 of 270 (7616)
03-22-2002 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by edge
03-21-2002 11:22 PM


Since my casual dismissal of TC's statement regarding geological evidence was excessively offensive to some people here, I will attempt to address TC's points more respectfully.
quote:
A hypothesis must have expectations and thus, evidence. So we look at the evidence. The evidence is actually very basic,...
Sometimes it is basic. Unfortunately, it is always basic to the professional creationists.
quote:
... in order for my hypothesis to be right, there must be gradual sea-floor spreading and subduction occuring though many magnitudes slower than today.
I am confused. I thought you wanted it to be faster. And how is "must be ... sea floor spreading" evidence? Evidence should indicate that sea floor spreading actually was slower.
quote:
There must be magnetic variation on a large scale from a frantic outer-core.
"Must be?" Well, there either is or there isn't. What does the evidence say? And what is a "frantic outer-core?" How do yo know it is frantic? What is the evidence? Are you one of those creationists who ridicules evolutionists for being speculative?
quote:
The outer core from such an increase in heat from radioisotopic desintegration ...
What? Why is the temperature increasing? Was it cooler at one time? What about the rest of the earth? Was not radioactivity increasing there also? What did this do to life on earth?
quote:
... and no where for such energy to yet be released through hot-spots, rifts or troughs, ...
How do yo know this? What is the evidence? You are telling stories without any supporting data. We actually see evidence of rifting far back in the geological record, long before the break up of Pangea. I thought you said we were going to look at the evidence...
quote:
... would greatly increase the activity of massive eddy currents and convection processes which control characteristics and properties of the magnetosphere and polarity.
This is another story. What is the evidence? What tells you that the convection cells were once slower, then speeded up and then slowed down again? Tell us how this directly relates to polarity of the earth?
quote:
There must be old mountain zones appearing as belts crossing southern continents if these are joined together in a certain way.
What do you mean by "must be?" Are there such mountain ranges? If so, that would be evidence. Tell us which mountain ranges you are talking about and then perhaps explain the older mountian ranges that are eroded away.
quote:
Continents must be able to relatively fit together like a puzzle and sea-floor spreading diversion must complement it.
Actually, plate tectonics does not require this. It may and does occur but it is not a requirement.
quote:
Even known scientific concepts such as increasing heat must result in lower viscosities to complement and result in more rapid mantle convection.
Sounds like Baumgardner here. Do you know that the only reason he needs heat is to make his model work? So, Baumgardner's model actually explains Baumgardner's model! There is no evidence for such heat flows in the geological record.
quote:
The reason that continents are not being eroded away from underneath but being built upon (with the exception of upwelling magma and hot-spots) must be explained, ...
And is explained more than adequately by standard plate tectonics. How is your plate tectonics better? What evidence do you have that contradicts standard plate tectonics that makes CPT better?
quote:
... which is explained by decreased temperature and a 'burn out' of radionucleic energy and leakage of asthenospheric and core heat by volcanic eruptions and lava flows, sea floor spreading, hydrothermal vents, etc.
The core is leaking? To the surface? How do you know this? How do you know that the radiogenic energy is burned out? These things would be data. What you are giving us is a (kind of fragmentary) story.
quote:
Continental masses must be less dense than oceanic basalt.
Indeed. Now how is this different from standard plate tectonic theory? All you have thrown a bunch of ideas, stories and and scientific nonsense, along with a dash of evidence, up against the wall to see if it sticks. Care to try again?
[This message has been edited by edge, 03-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by edge, posted 03-21-2002 11:22 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by TrueCreation, posted 03-25-2002 2:17 AM edge has replied

  
Brachinus
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 270 (7617)
03-22-2002 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 8:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"OK, so where are the Cambrian crawdads?"
--Speciation, they may not have existed at the time of the formation of the geo-column.

So which Cambrian forms did they "microevolve" from? Can you put forth a candidate for their Cambrian ancestor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 8:04 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by gene90, posted 03-23-2002 9:20 AM Brachinus has not replied
 Message 191 by TrueCreation, posted 03-25-2002 2:40 AM Brachinus has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 161 of 270 (7688)
03-23-2002 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Brachinus
03-22-2002 9:54 AM


TC, if you're going to claim that lobsters and crayfish came from something that doesn't even look like a lobster, isn't that a far bigger leap than from monkeys to man? That's macro if I've ever heard of it.
Anyway I think I'm going to look for ASU's "Tree of Life" website and see what lobster-like crustaceans predate lobsters and crayfish and when.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Brachinus, posted 03-22-2002 9:54 AM Brachinus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by edge, posted 03-23-2002 10:12 AM gene90 has not replied
 Message 192 by TrueCreation, posted 03-25-2002 2:48 AM gene90 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 162 of 270 (7689)
03-23-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by gene90
03-23-2002 9:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
TC, if you're going to claim that lobsters and crayfish came from something that doesn't even look like a lobster, isn't that a far bigger leap than from monkeys to man? That's macro if I've ever heard of it.
Indeed, and in a much shorter period of time than evolutionary time scales.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by gene90, posted 03-23-2002 9:20 AM gene90 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 163 of 270 (7701)
03-24-2002 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 9:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"no tc...those post illustrate a model of what COULD have occured...show me evidence that it DID IN FACT OCCUR."
--What 'could have happend' is the most your ever going to get from an inference on the past ludvan, it is what Evolution is entirely based on, along with gradualistic geologic time, its a 'could have happend' explination. Now whether this explination can explain all evidence, and is plausable, is something that is worthy of discussion. If you can challenge whether it can explain such phenomena or its plausability, have at it.

OK, show how your explanation is more logical and more plausible than current explanations by Geologists.
ALso, did you look ONLY at the physical evidence and come up with your model (which would be scientific), or did you look at the Bible story first, and then figure out a model trying to incorporate as much of natural phenomena as you could in order to make the Bible true (which wouldn't be scientific)?
It doesn't matter, really, even if you can explain where all the water comes from in a way that makes sense and doesn't require magic (althought I don't think you can). You have an enormous amount of evidence which strongly tends to refute the flood having happened.
Also, how do you explain why there are no flowering grasses, no flowering trees, and, in fact, no flowering plants, mammoth or miniscule, in the top layers of the Geologic strata?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 9:18 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by TrueCreation, posted 03-25-2002 2:57 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 164 of 270 (7702)
03-24-2002 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by KingPenguin
03-21-2002 11:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
thanks for such a good response to TC, Ludvan. some of these evolutionists are getting unbearable. Ill give my two cents on it and here it comes. In science everything is assumed to be probable and thus theyre are a dozens of explanations of life and of death. We dont really know for absolute what causes them but science does give us a very good approximation. Science also only provides a limited description of the past in that it doesnt measure actual time. Christianity doesn't explain anything either because if you didnt have to overcome obstacles to be saved then there really wouldnt be much point to living here on earth. maybe you dont have to have faith in Jesus to get into heaven but we need to believe that we need to have total faith so that we can accomplish something here on earth. Thats the basic drive behind all relgions, motivate your people. Christianity is right in my eyes because its based on love rather than some of the other religions that are based on hate and control. We dont believe for the sake of believing, we believe because we love and we know that we need to be loved and share love.
plz try to make sense of this.

mmm, I still think that you believe because you were taught to believe from a very young age.
The largest determinant of an individual's religious persuasion is where they live. That's why you don't find a lot of Hindus in your neighborhood, and why there aren't a lot of Christians in Tibet, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by KingPenguin, posted 03-21-2002 11:41 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 165 of 270 (7719)
03-24-2002 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by KingPenguin
03-21-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

For the THIRD time, what would you accept as a transitional?
---nothing

So you actually deny the POSSIBILITY that transitionals exist. KP, it isn’t possible to have a more closed mind.
Alarm bells a ringin’!
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Since you mention retro-evolution, how many RANDOM mutations do you think are required for noticeable morphological difference in species? What are the odds of a complete reversal in EXACTLY the same loci of those mutations, combined with the chance of those mutations being fixed in the respective populations in roughly 3,000,000,000 base pairs? When you give me the answer, I claim spontaneous generation of DNA to be positively LIKELY!
---like you said anythings possible, as long as that creature was fossilized youll have no idea.

If anything’s possible, what about transitionals?
You still haven’t answered the question. I’ve always been told by creationists that the number of mutations for macro evolution is vast. So, to support your statement that an organism could retro-evolve into what it was before you need at least to demonstrate it’s likelyhood. It’s that odds thing again. If it takes a thousand fixed mutations in a genome of say, 3 billion nucleotides then the chance of a mutation reversing it is 1/3,000,000,000. For that to happen ONLY 1,000 times is 3^9 to the 3^9th power. My scientific calculator can’t display this figure as it is so large.
So would you agree that its probably as likely that a species could evolve into what it was before and mess up the order is NOT a feasible argument for explaining fossil record patterns?
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Radiometric dating DOES PROVIDE A TIME SCALE. In this case 64.4 to 65.1 mya for the K-T tektites. I’m giving you corroborating evidence that IT DOES provide this time scale!!
---it gives an an approximate time not an exact one. its numbers are based on things existing now, not things as they existed when they first existed.

What are you on about? Half lives are demonstrably constant, why would you think they weren’t? Do you have any evidence that they weren’t from earths formation onwards? Saying it might have been, or Godidit is baseless assertion.
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

So, how do you REASONABLY explain this high level of corroboration? If you can’t, I may as well state that DNA arose spontaneously, because that involves unreasonable odds as well.
--science does state that dna arose spontaneously but like ive said science isnt nothing more than gift from God.

Abiogenesis DOESN’T state DNA arose spontaneously. To do that it would have to appear in a solution of constituent molecules ready made. DNA requires a battery of enzymes to replicate efficiently. RNA has the property of self catalyation, & is a candiate for a predecessor of DNA, before that PNA, who knows? But DNA was never thought to have spontaneously appeared. In fact it is the sheer odds of such an occurrence that weighs against it. Why is it that evolutionists can accept such bad odds, & dismiss an argument, but you can’t dismiss a 6,000 year old earth hypothesis in the face of 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1 odds?
If science is a gift from God why does it contradict the bible? Like turkeys voting for Christmas? Also science in the form of the scientific method is demonstrably man made.
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

How does the fact that radiometric dating is science detract from the sheer odds of it being wrong by chance, in this case by over 74,000,000 :1? Please address the odds.
---its still not 1:0. it still could be dead wrong and all the methods are more than likely horribly wrong but all science is meant to be that way.

It COULD be, but would you back this horse with your life savings? You’re stating the obvious.
How can these methods be MORE THAN LIKELY HORRIBLY WRONG? The odds suggest they are more than LIKELY right!
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

That you consider abiogenesis or the big bang to be laughable is irrelevant to the question in hand. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE ODDS OF FOUR DIFFERENT RADIOMETRIC METHODS HITTING THE SAME AGE RANGE BY CHANCE ALONE? Let me state it again : 74,805,201:1 .
---yes it is relevant and how likely something is doesnt affect anything. itll still happen and our methods will give different numbers later on when they become more improved. They also dont measure time they just measure everything but it. its assumptions and appearances. sure the universe appears to be billions of years ago but it could have just been created now like it is now and you wouldnt have any idea.

Sorry, KP, drivel, utter unsubstantiated drivel.
Radiometric dating methods measure time, by definition, not anything but. The assumptions are that half lives are constant, based on solid experimental evidence.
The truth, as an absolute 100% known factor doesn’t exist. But we base likely-hoods on the strength of evidence. Radiometric dating has been questioned by YECs. I have provided an example where the chance of radiometric methods getting the assumed YEC date wrong is 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1. Now, tell me. What is more LIKELY, a 6,000 year old earth, or an older earth based on the statistics provided by evidence?
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
I have provided the maths that four methods achieving the same age range by chance alone is 74,805,201:1 . Do you have a SINGLE evidence that the earth is in the order of 6,000 years old? If not you are NOT doing science (as you have claimed elsewhere), & are merely subscribing to an UNSUPPORTED belief. This belief is in the same order of support as yellow fairies made the earth 15,000 years ago.
---see now youve lost credibility, dont say stuff like that. Having faith is having faith. its not like science where you can be lazy and go off of things you can observe.

How have I lost credibility? You are eschewing evidence (radiometric) in favour of a substance-less position. This is an awful intellectual hypocrisy. You believe in an evidence-less God, & claim other evidence-less religions are incorrect. HOW can you claim anything is wrong without a basis for doing so. How can you claim anything is true without evidence? Much less, you are claiming science, with a basis in evidence, is wrong at the expense of unsubstantiated supernatural scripture. It is the person that argues from an evidence backed position who has credibility, not the other way around.
So, do you have evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old?
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

You mean sheer mathematical unlikelihood of your timescale is exactly matched by your lack of ANY positive evidence of a young earth? Pur-lease! Present YOUR positive evidence of a 6,000 year old earth & we’ll see which theory has the greatest corroboration. The odds you are arguing against are 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1 for four methods to be so close by chance, I laughed at them too, when I saw them, but, I suspect, for an altogether different reason.
---like ive said the earth can appear to be however old it wants to be. it still has no effect on when it was created. God did create us an old earth to live on, with stars in the sky for us to admire.
Time is relative & easily altered? LOL! Would you accept this argument if I presented it against a 6,000 year old earth evidence? Not a chance! Even if you CAN show that time can be altered under 1G (earths gravity) by 1,000,000%, which I sincerely doubt, the even larger numbers simply make your position even more untenable.
---okay einsteins wrong your right.

The earth will appear as old as it is, not as old as it wants, & it appears old. Your argument is with radiometric dating & the corroborative odds produced by the example I provided.
No, me & Einstein are in perfect agreement, it’s you who disagrees. You need to show that under 1g of gravity, at the speed the earth rotates about the sun that time can vary by 1,000,000%. If you think that 1g, or the earths velocity about the sun varied, then show that it did by a factor as large enough to cause a 1,000,000% time dilation. If not, then time isn’t as easily altered as your argument requires.
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Can you show that time can be easily altered by 1,000,000% , which is the percentile margin you are required to defeat to make YEC time be true. If not, you still need to address the sheer odds AGAINST a 6,000 year old earth provided by this (from a YEC POV) unlikely corroboration. Let me repeat : 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1
----YEC time doesnt need any science to be true. you cannot compare evo and YEC.

Geological time is based on evidence. If you can’t produce evidence of YEC time, then I can say with EXACTLY the same intellectual basis that the earth is 50,000 years old, or 100 billion years old, etcetera, ad infinitum. Any claim to know the age of the earth without any presented evidence is meaningless.
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Let me be clearer.
-cool
If 1% of 6,000 is 60 years,
Then, 65,100,000 years = 1,085,000%
So, if you are prepared to accept that radiometric dating is, say 900,000% inaccurate, then you are accepting an earth of at LEAST 11,100,000 years old.
Radiometric dating in my cite MUST be 1,084,900% Inaccurate for a YEC creation date to be true. What rationale do you offer to continue believing in a YEC position? If you DON’T concede that the dating methods described are at least 1,084,000% (60,000 year old earth, for example), then you are not questioning the methods, which are different, but the underlying physics. This means you are questioning half life rates. One of the most constant of physical phenomena. Half lives have to be out by the order of 1 million percent to accommodate a YEC date, can you show this?
---i cant show this because i wasnt there when God created the earth but im sure half-life is well within his domain of control.
If not, how do you accommodate such figures in your world view scientifically? Remember, this is an evidence based discussion, & Godidit means nothing. Creation science is extant to show evidence of biblical literalism, to be science we need evidence, claims of Godidit are not evidence.
---God never shows himself and im not for Creation Science, since Christianity shouldnt mix with science that way. Science says it isnt proof either.

Baseless assertion.
How do you argue the above odds with a basis in evidence? Saying Godidit without showing SOME positive evidence of Gods existence is simply denial. Do you understand this? It would be like you being tried for a crime you never committed, you weren’t in the country, the gun had someone else’s prints on it, & all the witnesses said it wasn’t you, but judge believes it was, so you get the chair.
In order to argue a position you must have some basis to successfully do so. What basis do you have? The bible? What basis in evidence do you have for assuming God to exist because of what is written in it? Because it looks to me that you have no basis for believing God to exist, no basis for believing that God wants to test us, no basis for denying colossal odds against a 6,000 year old earth, no basis in EVIDENCE whatsoever. In fact, in light of this, it looks to me that anything, no matter what the odds/evidence, if they contradict the bible you’re sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes & saying GODIDIT, GODIDIT, GODIDIT!
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by KingPenguin, posted 03-21-2002 11:16 PM KingPenguin 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