Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
99 online now:
AZPaul3, Phat (AdminPhat), Pollux, ramoss (4 members, 95 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,022 Year: 3,668/14,102 Month: 288/321 Week: 104/44 Day: 20/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 322 of 1486 (730496)
06-28-2014 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by OS
06-25-2014 4:06 PM


Re: Ar-40 to K-40
OS writes:

I was wondering if there was a way to convert Argon-40 into Potassium-40, in a lab.


Are you suggesting that the decay of Potassium-40 is reversible? And that that would call into question the validity of Potassium-Argon dating? If so, pertaining to the topic, how do you explain the correlations with all of the other dating methods? Wouldn't they all have to be reversible at an exactly coincidental rate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by OS, posted 06-25-2014 4:06 PM OS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by OS, posted 06-28-2014 3:22 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 325 of 1486 (730501)
06-28-2014 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by OS
06-28-2014 3:22 PM


Re: Ar-40 to K-40
OS writes:

Tree rings are the training ground of radiocarbon daters, and ice core samples is impossibly stupid;


You don't seem to know what you're talking about. The gist of this thread (and its several companions) is that different dating methods, based on entirely different processes, produce the same dates. To show that one method is invalid, you'd have to show that they are all invalid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by OS, posted 06-28-2014 3:22 PM OS has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 550 of 1486 (815477)
07-20-2017 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 538 by marc9000
07-19-2017 7:55 PM


Re: Another falsehood
marc9000 writes:

So they're "absolutely" repeatable and observable, but not "provable"?


Before you try to criticize science, you should learn what some of the terminology means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 7:55 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 587 of 1486 (823037)
11-05-2017 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by starman
11-05-2017 1:42 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

You try to limit the future and past to the mere constraints of the current world.


What else do you use?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:42 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:52 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 595 of 1486 (823047)
11-05-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by starman
11-05-2017 1:52 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

Why use anything unless you know?


Because we have no reason to think that reality has magically changed. If water is wet today, it seems reasonable to assume it was wet a million years ago. Why wouldn't you?

starman writes:

Just admit ignorance.


Creationists don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:52 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by starman, posted 11-06-2017 1:48 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(4)
Message 612 of 1486 (823115)
11-06-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by starman
11-06-2017 1:48 AM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

We need a reason to think the forces and laws that govern the atoms that make up cells and determine how things exist on earth was the same, if we intend to build all models on the assumption it was.


That's backwards. If something HAS changed, we need evidence to SHOW that it has changed. We can't base our thinking on, "it MIGHT have changed" because we have no way of knowing HOW it might have changed. In the absence of any evidence of change, the sensible conclusion is that there hasn't been a change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by starman, posted 11-06-2017 1:48 AM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by jar, posted 11-06-2017 10:52 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 616 by starman, posted 11-06-2017 1:02 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 636 of 1486 (823277)
11-08-2017 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by starman
11-06-2017 1:02 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

You have then no reason to doubt the different past recorded in history and Scripture are wrong...or right...or anything.


We know that the Bible is fiction because it doesn't match reality. There were no plants before sunlight. The Bible is just wrong about that, and about a thousand other things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by starman, posted 11-06-2017 1:02 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 647 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:38 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 665 of 1486 (823433)
11-10-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 647 by starman
11-09-2017 12:38 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

Reality is not constrained to under your nose or your back yard actually. Reality includes the future and past....


That's what we've been telling you. You need to LOOK at reality, not just prattle that reality was different in the past.

starman writes:

... not just the current nature on earth!


Again, if you want to claim that the "current nature" is different from the "past nature", you have to have evidence. Show us some evidence. You can claim that pigs could fly in the past but you need evidence to back up your claim. Unfortunately for you, all of the evidence we have shows that the "past nature" of the earth was the same as the "current nature".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 12:38 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 669 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:01 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 666 of 1486 (823434)
11-10-2017 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 658 by starman
11-09-2017 4:09 PM


starman writes:

Rocks your world when someone doesn't believe your fables eh?


Look again. Creationist nonsense has been kicked out of the schools time and time again. It's YOUR world that is being rocked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 4:09 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 668 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:01 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 671 of 1486 (823450)
11-10-2017 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 668 by starman
11-10-2017 12:01 PM


starman writes:

You are not here to debate but to air hatred of God and Christians.


Almost everybody I know is a Christian. I don't hate them.

If you want to discuss Christianity or the Bible, we have threads for that. You're clearly out of your depth in the science threads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:01 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:16 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 672 of 1486 (823451)
11-10-2017 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 669 by starman
11-10-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
starman writes:

Either try to evidence your claimed nature in the past or you may not use it in models.


You're just repeating yourself. Try learning how science works before making a fool of yourself in the science forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 669 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:01 PM starman has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 777 of 1486 (840568)
10-02-2018 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 776 by creation
10-02-2018 12:49 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
creation writes:

Hard to believe creationists used to lose debates.


No, it's pretty easy to believe. Do you answer posts at all?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 12:49 PM creation has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 779 of 1486 (840577)
10-02-2018 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 778 by creation
10-02-2018 1:03 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
creation writes:

Razd asked fishbowl boundary..


You're making the same mistake that rookie creationists always make. You're giving your 'profound' replies to a dozen different topics.

Pick one and discuss it in depth. Then you might understand why creationists can't win.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 778 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 1:03 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 780 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 3:40 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 781 of 1486 (840591)
10-02-2018 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 780 by creation
10-02-2018 3:40 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
creation writes:

All the so called science fables on origins are made up nonsense. They have no depth.


You have no depth. Pick a topic and discuss it in depth.

Hint: this topic is about age correlations - i.e. it's about a lot of different, unrelated methods that all come up with the same answers. Even if you could shoot down one of them - and nobody ever has - you'd still be at square one. You'd have to shoot down all of them to prove that the conclusion is false.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 3:40 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 786 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 7:02 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19140
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 790 of 1486 (840696)
10-03-2018 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 786 by creation
10-02-2018 7:02 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
creation writes:

All so called correlations are based on the same belief...


Nope. Many of them are completely independent. Take your own examples: Tree rings...starlight...decay...fossils...etc. Show us how they are interrelated.

creation writes:

Bring it.


You're the one who has to bring it if you want anybody to take you seriously.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 7:02 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 791 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-03-2018 11:56 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 792 by creation, posted 10-03-2018 12:22 PM ringo has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021