Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9014 total)
49 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (3 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 881,963 Year: 13,711/23,288 Month: 229/412 Week: 16/40 Day: 1/12 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion of the CMI-AS debate (Meldinoor, NosyNed, Slevesque, Arphy only)
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 6 of 51 (536334)
11-21-2009 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
11-20-2009 6:23 PM


Hi
Hi Meldinoor, Nosyned, and Slevesque
Thanks to Meldinoor and Nosyned for setting this up and for inviting me.

The initial reason that I posted a link to the source material was to provide an example to dwise of a written debate between respected evolutionists and creationists. If this thread ever gets concluded maybe we could have another look back and see if these types of debate are worthwhile (both the source and our own debate here, whether they should be more focused (the debate covers a lot of ground), etc. Also, as an aside the title should read CMI (Creation Ministries International) not ICM.

Anyway, here goes the reply to Meldinoor's opening post:

1. Natural Law (1 argument)
a)
A strawman attack on evolution using the laws of thermodynamics
to show how the universe must have had a beginning. (Strawman)

How is this a strawman argument? Yes, many evolutionists believe the universe had a beginning, however there are also some who don't i.e. as explained in CMI's final essay. If we take it that the universe did have a beginning then this is good supporting evidence for a creator. In a materialistc explanation this evidence can at the most provide neutral evidence but not positive evidence for a materialistic explanation.

2. Life (5 arguments)
a)
Evolution must explain how life began (Untrue)

I have only written this once or twice in my life but this situation calls for it. LOL!!
The AS really blew it big time here.
Let me quote from their (AS) opening essay:

Self-replicating molecules first appeared on the Earth about 3.5 billion
years ago.

All life on Earth is descended from these molecules, although there may
have been many originations at different times and in different places.


This is simply incredible. They first make these claims and then run away from them by the second essay! What sort of a tactic is that?! You complain about "Gish gallops", well this sort of tactic is at the very least confusing or very bad debating.

The same goes for cosmic evolution.
They (AS) make the claim

According to the latest research, the universe is about 13.7 billion years
old. The conditions and events which initially brought the universe into
being are unknown at this time, but not necessarily unknowable.

Apart from an extremely tiny period of time following the universe
coming into existence, there are certain rules, processes and constant
values which operate across time, so that some observations made now
have applied to the universe since it began and some conditions of the new
universe still apply today.


Note especially the 2nd claim "Apart from an extremely tiny period of time following the universe coming into existence". Here they are definatly making a claim for cosmic evolution. Yet they turn around in the second essay and deny it! What the....?

These two clear examples of, well not too sure what to call it, but perhaps hypocrisy, is just very bad debating. And then they try to blast the creationists for bringing up the subjects! That is just incredible!

Even the simplest life needs elaborate "machinery"
(Unsupported claim)

Please don't be too quick to label something an unsupported claim. CMI provide an example which contains a reference for further reading. Yet you have made a judgement on the evidence even before we have discussed it. If you feel that the evidence given is insubstantial, wrong, misunderstood, or should be discarded for some other reason then you can say so. But then it is up to you to provide reasons for why this is so, otherwise you are just making unsubstantiated claims as well, i.e. you provide no evidence as to why you reached that conclusion.

There are vast hurdles for chemical evolution to overcome in
order to produce life (Unsupported claim)

The AS claim on this topic is also unsupported with any references. However, in the next essay the AS run away from the claim (as shown above) while CMI does go into more detail and provides references.

This is probably enough discussion material on individual points but just want to discuss some of your conclusions.

"what tangible basis is there for anyone to reject the claim that there is indeed a Creator who has spoken by His prophets in the Bible?"

In other words: "prove that God doesn't exist". This must be the silliest thing written in the entire debate.

Eh? What they are saying is that given the evidence as portayed in their essay, why do people still cling to other beliefs?

They also ask the creationists to provide evidence for their claims. Which, incidentally, ICM never provides.
CMI does but do AS provide any evidence for their claims?

This they do without throwing in 24 PRATTs and bare assertions.
Pardon me but they definatly rattle of some PRATTs about the ark and then make a whole list of claims. They don't provide a single reference in their opening essay compared to the 35 references given in the CMI opening essay!!!!!

1. ICM does not bother presenting evidence of special creation (let a lone biblical special creation)
many arguments used by YECs can be evidence for creation in general. Evidence for a young earth is definatly positive evidence for creation as opposed to a materialistic explanation. Please note that if you have problems with, or see flaws in the evidence then say so and give reasons why. Don't just make judgements about the evidence without discussing it. CMI believe that they have evidence for a young earth so do us a favour and don't just hand wave it away but take it seriously and show us with logic and evidence that we are incorrect. Is this fair? Agreed?
They also provide evidence in other areas which are only consistent with a creator, and so again I would ask that you take us to task on this evidence and not merely hand wave it away. As for Biblical creation specifically they gave evidence concerning flood accounts from around the world. I would also possibly later in this debate like to introduce more historical records and ancient genealogies that verify the historicity of the bible.

I think this post may have addressed a few points in your scond post as well. As for topics, your list seems to indicate that you are most interested in evidence for the different views on the age of the earth. That's fine with me, although i hope that we might be able to keep it relevant to the source debate. Although, maybe we could each pick our "pet" topic from the debate and focus on those. Or perhaps we should just start debating and then see which topics become the most popular or interesting. Either way, I don't mind too much.

I think I would be speaking for Slevesque as well by saying that just be careful to not over-use what seem to be pre-programmed "lie", and "haven't shown any evidence" buttons that seem to exist on most evolutionists' computer keyboards This makes it much easier for me and slevesque to take you seriously. Other than that, Let's get this party started!

Thanks,

Arphy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 6:23 PM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Meldinoor, posted 11-22-2009 1:12 AM Arphy has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 11 of 51 (536347)
11-22-2009 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Meldinoor
11-22-2009 1:12 AM


Re: Response to Arphy
Hi Meldinoor

Just a quick note.
Sorry, didn't provide a reference of where the "running away" from the AS initial claims occurs. On page 30, 2nd paragraph

Before going on, it would be worthwhile to say what evolutionary theory
is not about. It neither requires nor denies the existence of a god. It is not
about the origin of life. It is not about the origin of the universe.
So why bring it up in their opening essay?

Again page 31, 2nd paragraph

As I said above, there is no requirement for evolutionary theory to ‘explain
the origin of first life’, because evolution is about changes over time.
Scientists simply do not know how life first arose on Earth.
Again, why make claims when you don't know how it happened and you believe to talk about it would be off topic?

Anyway, I guess there are more important things to discuss, although it certainly is an interesting point.
I like your idea of picking some key topics. I haven't decided yet as to what I'd like to focus on but will get back to you about that soon.

(Slevesque, if you could maybe email me we could discuss which topics would be the best, or we could discuss it on here if you wish, or just both pick one or two topics each)

Will be traveling tomorrow and meeting up with family, so may not have a chance to reply, but will try to as soon as possible.

BTW, where's NosyNed? Any comments, suggestions?

Alright, gotta go.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Meldinoor, posted 11-22-2009 1:12 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 11-22-2009 6:24 PM Arphy has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 16 of 51 (536575)
11-24-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by NosyNed
11-22-2009 6:24 PM


Re: Clearing things up
Hi NosyNed

Hmmm, you seem to have missed the point that i was trying to make.
Namely that it has often been said (e.g. on this forum and your post seems to suggest it as well) that when creationists debate evolutionists they should not bring up anything to do with abiogenesis or cosmic evolution (sometimes geology is added as well) because it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Yet the ironic thing is that AS in their opening list of claims make clear references to abiogenesis and cosmic evolution. Why did they do this? Then, in the second essay they give CMI a telling off for bringing up the subjects when they (AS) did so as well! What sort of a tactic is that?

As for CMI trying to make an "attempt to distract from the weakness of support for their own ideas by trying to find unanswered questions" is in my opinion not true. CMI and myself are very convinced that there is strong support for our ideas. I don't think that saying "Aha, you don't know how that happened so it must be goddidit!" is good logic. But, since when is it wrong to point out weaknesses in a theory? And since when is it wrong to reject a theory if it's flaws are too great?

Also if it is scientifically valid to conduct research into finding evidence which supports materialistic abiogenesis, why is it suddenly unscientific to conduct research into finding evidence that supports special creation? Is evidence and research only valid if it supports a materialistic view? If so, then this is no longer hunting for the truth, but rather promoting one theory at the exclusion of another.

My point in writing the above was not to necessarily get into abiogenesis or cosmic evolution but rather to try and quieten some of the comments about "bad debating" aimed at creationists.

I think there has been quite a call from many people on this site (and from AS)that more emphasis is put on providing positive evidence for biblical creation. While biological arguments can certainly be used as corroborative evidence, many arguments can be used for creation in general. Geologic evidence and Anthropological evidence gives more direct biblical evidence as it provides evidence for one of the most significant events in the bible. Namely The Flood. Therefore i would like to focus on these topics. Could be a bit broad at the moment so will try to narrow it down with specific examples later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 11-22-2009 6:24 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 11-24-2009 2:06 PM Arphy has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 18 of 51 (536757)
11-24-2009 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NosyNed
11-24-2009 2:06 PM


Re: Bringing up Extraneous Areas
Hi NosyNed
Unfortunately, the CMI didn't supply any support for their own ideas.
And the AS did?

Anyway, I think that CMI did supply support for the ideas they presented. Note, what do you count as positive evidence for a theory? Can you call something as positive evidence for a theory if it is compatible with an otherwise conflicting theory? I don't really think so. That is why I think it is necessary for creationists to show that not only is the evidence consistent with Biblical creation but is also incompatible with a naturalistic explanation.

On the age of the earth AS expects CMI to come out with some sort of research that uses a "clock" which says that the earth is 6000 years old. This is just not possible, because every such natural clock is based on big assumptions. The date of approx. 6000 years comes from simple calculations using the dates and ages provided in the bible and other historical sources. Although even here certain assumptions are used, variancies if source information still do not allow for an excessive increase beyond this age.
What I do find legitimate is when research is done that takes a wide variety of assumptions and possibilities into account. This type of research allows us to calculate maximum or minimum ages for the earth. CMI certainly provide evidence to support a "young" earth by using research (including references to the RATE project) which shows that the maximum age of the earth does not fit with the naturalistic ideas such as long-age geology or evolutionary biology. Yet the evidence does fit within Biblical creationist geology and biology. Note, that this doesn't necessarily completly negate a naturalistic explanation, but to say that naturalistic biology and geology will someday find a way to incorporate the "young-ness" of the earth, is really just special pleading (also see edit). Therefore I think it is reasonable to say that evidence for a "young" earth is evidence for Biblical creation.

There are a number of other arguments which are positive evidence for creation even though they do not negate a naturalistic explanation if special pleading is used. The Thermodynamics arguments are one such example. They are good evidence that a creator "started" the universe. To say that matter and energy spontaneously came from nothing or that somehow the thermodynamics laws for some reason worked in reverse as the AS suggest or that someday we will find a naturalistic explanation is really just another case of special pleading.

CMI also show support of the Biblical model in the area of Biological changes by showing that variation due to mutations causes "downhill" changes. This is similar to the thermodynamics argument in that a creator is needed to create the initial organisms from which the present organisms evolved from in a "downhill" fashion. This in turn is also evidence against any naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis or any arguments based on an "uphill" explanation for life. The creation model also make sense of evidence such as irriducible complexity and design while all naturalistic explanations fail.

Traditions from around the world give corroborative evidence for the truth of the Genesis account. As in a judicial court room the corroborative evidence of many witnesses provides powerful evidence for the authenticity of an account. This is a strong case for Biblical creation.

BTW, in this post I basically stuck to what was in the debate. I think maybe for now it might be good to stick to the areas brought up in the CMI-AS debate as best as possible. However, i think eventually the discussion will demand that we move into evidence and arguments not mentioned in the debate.
Would you like to do a post that shows that AS provide positive evidence that "the universe and life evolve[ed]", as per the Question posed by the Sydney Morning Herald to kick off the debate? I think it would be helpful.

ABE: Also note that i am not saying that therefore a scientist with a naturalistic viewpoint should not try to find naturalistic answers (although I think it is a bit of a waste of time and money). But to turn around and say "I am working on the problem and one day I will solve the problem and therefore you cannot say that your theory, which may be consistent with evidence at the moment, is better than mine". Using evidence that you may find in the future is not a particularly strong argument in the present.

Edited by Arphy, : added edit to help clarify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 11-24-2009 2:06 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 26 of 51 (537497)
11-29-2009 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
11-28-2009 10:39 AM


Re: Correlations
Even if you can offer multiple line of evidence that correlate on the same maximum date (which I don't think you can)

Why would we have to do that? Even if you have some methods which give approx. the same max date, this is little more than coincident (or the two methods are related). You will always find a different method which disagrees with your initial method. Anyway, What would it mean if every method had the same max date?

that isn't nearly (not by a mile) as powerful as one which correlates date by date, year by year.
Well, I don't think long-agers have found this, but feel free to shows us in more detail what you mean. As i said before, Trying to pinpoint specific years with geological "clocks" has too many assumptions attached.

Edited by Arphy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2009 10:39 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2009 12:44 PM Arphy has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 30 of 51 (537905)
12-01-2009 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
12-01-2009 12:44 PM


Re: Correlations
You are the one who said:
It was slevesque in message 24, but anyway. Here is the opening summary from RAZD's post
•Message 2 - The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.

•Message 3 - The minimum age of the earth is 10,434 years by annual tree rings in Europe (different environment, different genus, not just different species and from two different locations ).

•Message 4 - The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe (different environment and species), confirmed by carbon-14 levels in the samples (different information from the same sources).

•Message 5 - The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).

•Message 6 - The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).

•Message 7 - The minimum age of the earth is 37,957 years by visually counting layers, 60,000 years by counting dust layers, 110,000 years by measuring electrical conductivity of layers, and up to 250,000 years by counting of layers below a discontinuity, all counting annual layers of ice in Greenland (different location).

•Message 8 - The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).

•Message 9 - The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core data

•Message 10 - The minimum radiometric age of the earth is of coral is >400,000,000 years by radiometric age correlated with the astrono-physics predicted length of the day correlated with the daily growth rings in ancient coral heads. (different location, different environment, different methods).

•Message 11 - the radiometric dates for a number of specific events show a consistent accuracy to the methods used, and an age for the earth of ~4,500,000,000 years old.

•Message 12 - the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.

•Message 13 - just for fun.

Note that not all the minimmum ages for the earth are not the same. It is not necessary to have exactly the same minimum date for all the methods for RAZD to make his point. I was just pointing out the same thing in relation to maximum ages. They don't have to point to the exact same maximum age for the point to be made. i.e. They correlate in terms of "young" or "old" earth, but not in terms of exact dates, and they don't need to.

So you agree that the correlation of results in detail rather than just a maximum date is very powerful?
Yes, RAZD's arguments are powerful if correct, so I have been looking into some of them. But what would it mean (what can we infer) if all max dates are the same? I don't know.

If you think that "I don't think so." is an adequate argument then I guess you are finished now.
It wasn't an argument, it was a challenge for you to bring evidence supporting your claim. I guess it wasn't really necessary to write that phrase as you already know that "I don't think so".

But, If I may say so, your statement

The "assumptions" have been checked out and there is good, strong reasons for accepting them as being the case.
is also a bit weak. What do you expect me to do with a statement like that? Take it on trust, and throw everything i believe out the window? I'm sure even you would find that an irrational thing to do. If you want to state it and then back it up with evidence then i am willing to listen and discuss it. Fair?

Supply the "assumptions" that you feel are wrong and exactly why you think they are wrong.
You bring the dating method you feel is powerful and I'll bring a critique of the assumptions used in that method. Fair enough?

I am slightly shocked that you find my posts inadequte, I hope this post has clarified some things.

Sincerely,

Arphy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2009 12:44 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2009 5:09 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 31 of 51 (537910)
12-01-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by NosyNed
12-01-2009 1:06 PM


Re: Independent methods
Hi NosyNed

Good analogies to discuss

What I can judge with a reasonably high degree of confidence is that they have all counted off the same amount of time since they were set.
This is in fact the part that is hardest to judge. Of course in a normal clock this is impossible because the numbers are "recycled". Therefore I guess you are talking about stopwatches. Can you say for certain that none of the watches have been stopped and started again? Can you say for certain that none of the watches were fast-fowarded?

Remember that in our case of geologic dating I can know if someone has been resetting the clocks or not so that isn't an explanation for the match of the clocks in the store.
Explain?

Each of these has been calibrated and some idea of its error determined.
If some disagree
hang on. If something went wrong then either we calibrated it wrong or something happened to the clocks. Right? So what happened to them? Well, perhaps the water clock lost or gained some water? or the sand in the hour glass somehow leaked? or perhaps the sand flowed faster or slower due to some inconsistencies in the sand? etc. So you can conclude that you no longer know what the time is. You can also conclude that next time you need to recalibrate the methods and check regularly that they don't vary.

The other problem with this experiment for our purposes here is that the experimenter is there at the beginning of the experiment. He knows that he set off all the clocks at the same time. The fact that two clocks are in sync with each other doesn't mean that they necessarily show the "actual" time. Disturbances in the environment may have had a similar effect on these two clocks which kept them in sync with each other but not the "actual" time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2009 1:06 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2009 4:54 PM Arphy has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 37 of 51 (538013)
12-02-2009 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NosyNed
12-02-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Prediction Match
Because he fudged it.

Can we please get beyond the "all creationists are liars" argument! If you are so sure of your statement then you had better have some evidence to back it up. You have just made a very insulting accusation and if you have no evidence to back it up it looks like you are just trying to find any excuse to ignore the evidence (which is favourite claim that evolutionists like to make about creationists!!). So I would ask that you take our claims seriously unless you have good reason, with supporting evidence, to reject it. Fair enough?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NosyNed, posted 12-02-2009 10:58 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 12-02-2009 6:32 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 38 of 51 (538016)
12-02-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NosyNed
12-01-2009 4:54 PM


Re: Independent methods
Obviously, if a jokester is sneaking into the store and messing with the clocks then anything is possible so it isn't an interesting discussion at that point.
Why a jokester? Natural environmental factors can often do the same trick. Including stopping and starting, and slowing down and speeding up.

What is are the odds that a clock got stuck and happened to restart such that it agrees with all the others?
If the environmental conditions effect them similarly then why not?

The point of this isn't that I am trusting any one clock but that I have totally independent methods of measuring duration.
Great, so which one is telling the "correct" time?

I am the person who wanders in to the set up sometime after it has been running. I can check the clocks as I find them now and read off the durations they measure.
ok, so do you know all the environmental conditions that the watches experienced before you came? and how it effected them? Can you tell if one watch is running faster or slower than another at the present point in time (note, a watch that is going slower now might not necessarily be the one with the shortest age)? Do you know if the watches were set off simulataneously?

Can you explain what disturbances would would make a water clock, hour glass, pendulum clock, atomic clock and my wrist watch all read wrong by the same amount?
I think i have answered this above. the other point i would like to make is that as far as I know, it is not the norm for geological clocks to have the same dates. If you want to bring an example of two different methods producing the same result this could be helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2009 4:54 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 12-02-2009 7:28 PM Arphy has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 42 of 51 (538062)
12-03-2009 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by NosyNed
12-02-2009 7:28 PM


Re: Independent methods
Hi NosyNed

Woah, the analogy has changed. We now have ALL the clocks showing the same elapsed time.

And if you can find that impact how does it "adjust" all the other clock types by the same amount.
Don't know, I haven't made a claim like that.

Not "which one" but "which oneS".

Great, so which oneS are telling the "correct" time?

Why don't we finish with the clocks first but if you must have it:
Message 1
Which happens to show many different clocks telling many DIFFERENT times.

What can impact all the clocks in the same way? You said there might be something. What is it?
No I didn't. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. My argument does not require something that impacts all clocks. Because you have yet to show that all (geological)clocks tell the same time. My argument was that SOME clocks may be affected in a similar way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 12-02-2009 7:28 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2009 11:01 AM Arphy has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 45 of 51 (538141)
12-04-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by NosyNed
12-03-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Matching Clocks

Edited by Arphy, : deleted because I somehow managed to double post


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2009 11:01 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 46 of 51 (538142)
12-04-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by NosyNed
12-03-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Matching Clocks
No clock ever, ever tells the "correct" time since they all have some degree of error. Some have infinitesimally tiny errors.
Great, and some have big errors. How do you know how big the error is? Can you compare them to a "correct" clock?

If you are forced to make your best judgment on the "correct" time what would you pick in each case?
Don't know. I think the best clock is one that is experienced such as counting the number of days by experiencing night and day and making a tally. The person doing the measurements is there at the beginning, middle and end of amount of time measured. This way fluctuations may also be experienced if they occur. Although even here certain faults and assumptions with this. However I don't conclusivly trust any watch that has not been experienced throughout it's whole life.

More importantly, what if we are interested in the elapsed time since they were last set in some way? How confident are you in picking clocks which have stayed in sync since then?
Not confident. Clocks that show the same time are more likly to be ones that are in sync with each other, but again not necessarily.

arphy writes:

If you want to bring an example of two different methods producing the same result this could be helpful.


nosyned writes:

Why don't we finish with the clocks first but if you must have it:
Message 1

I took this to mean that you were giving me an example of two different methods producing the same result. What is actually contained in the message is many methods giving a wide variety of dates for the minimum age of the earth.

We are still talking about the clock analogy I thought. You said something might impact the clocks and now you jump to geology? Does that mean you were never talking about the clocks analogy when you were referring to impacts?
ok, what do you want me to do? Research how normal clocks work and find something that effects them all. What would discussing the finer points of water clocks and pocket watches achieve? If we can't transfer this analogy to natural clocks then what is the point? Yes, some things may impact natural and man-made clocks, but not necessarily. going into the details of how man-made clocks work is not the issue.

btw, won't be here this weekend, I'll be back next week


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2009 11:01 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 12-04-2009 12:32 PM Arphy has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 50 of 51 (538666)
12-09-2009 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by NosyNed
12-04-2009 12:32 PM


Re: Matching Clocks
We don't actually have or have to have a correct clock as we usually think of it since in no case are we really measuring the time of day. What we are measuring is a duration.
true, so time is relative.

It sounds like you won't trust any time measurement at all then. So you might as well step out of this debate since it is about a time measurement in the end.
I didn't say that. I did however say
arphy writes:

However I don't conclusivly trust any watch that has not been experienced throughout it's whole life.

Since at no time has any one carefully counted time duration for more than years or maybe a few decades you suggest that there are no methods for measuring durations that you will accept.
The first qualification is that the start of the watch is experienced and recorded. Throughout the life the time shown on the watch needs to be compared to other watches and checked that it is still operating. In other words it needs to be experienced. If you don't know the history of the watch then no i don't trust it, there are far too many factors that can influence it for those types of watches to be useful.

The conclusion may be arrived at with a high degree of confidence or a lower one but it is often still possible to come to a interim conclusion that is somewhat better than "I have no clue."
hmm... you seem to have a problem with the fact that some things are unknowable. Sorry, that's just the way it is, especially with the past, things get lost.

In the case of the clocks I would give a rather high degree of confidence if all the types of clocks agreed, very high in fact. Why wouldn't you?
I agree, if all clocks agreed with each other then this would be strong evidence. But, even this i cannot fully trust to give us an accurate date because of the reasons above. But, anyway, i don't think this is a question that will concern me much because not all clocks agree. It is purely hypothetical and has no place in reality.

You haven't read far enough. If you do you'll find that the method you like -- counting intervals is used to determine absolute dates and the counting methods agree with radiometric dating methods which also agree with calendar dates given by people who "were there". It is not just the minimum dates that are given. It is actual matches between widely varying methods that are the "correlations" being discussed.
Great and up to those dates I think I probably agree with the dating. It is the dating beyond these points that i have problems with. Do you want to go into detail into one of these methods? Maybe ice core dating?

Arm waving that there might be something affecting them all to produce the same error doesn't cut it here or there. You don't need to know the details of any of the workings of the clocks to realize there is very, very, very, very unlikely to be something to affect all of them to produce a wrong duration that all agree.
Great, as evolutionists like to point out, improbable doesn't mean impossible. Anyway, as i said before, this point is irrelevant to the actual discussion unless you can prove that all dating methods agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 12-04-2009 12:32 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Arphy, posted 02-11-2010 3:45 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 51 of 51 (546468)
02-11-2010 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Arphy
12-09-2009 3:19 AM


Re: Matching Clocks
Hi Guys.
I've been a bit busy of late. To save me going through endless pages of debates to try and find a suitable discussion to jump into, did any of you want to reply to the last post in this thread? or continue this thread on in general. If not at the moment I guess it's back to joining into the fray for the time being, but feel free to start this thread up again anytime you want. Good to see all of you are still active. Especially you slevesque, good to know you're still toughing it out against the masses.
See ya all round,

Arphy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Arphy, posted 12-09-2009 3:19 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020