16 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasIn this thread you were asked to pick a topic to discuss, give data to
But you usually don't read scientific texts, do you? I asked you to read a basic book about geology once, but you refuse. So why would I think otherwise here? And you seem not to want to read the proposed paragraph Andrew asked you to, wo what am I to think? You feel this is an attack? I say, no it wasn't. Still whining?
present basically...you defered to me. I picked one you instead of just
moving forward with any attempt at all to discuss a topic you started
after me again. You again cannot think for yourself, you don't even
want to present an point of view, your point of view is go read a book.
So without any attempt to enter into a discussion where you actually
have to defend a point you lower self to this again. If I ever find
myself responding to anything you say again, I'll drop off this site.
Kelly
16 Apr 09
Originally posted by KellyJayBut KJ, you have to realize, that it is pointless to discuss science with you, I just skip that. Some do, and I envy them their energy, taöling to a wall.
In this thread you were asked to pick a topic to discuss, give data to
present basically...you defered to me. I picked one you instead of just
moving forward with any attempt at all to discuss a topic you started
after me again. You again cannot think for yourself, you don't even
want to present an point of view, your point of view is go read a book.
...[text shortened]... . If I ever find
myself responding to anything you say again, I'll drop off this site.
Kelly
I rather teach science to children, because they are open-minded, you're not. They learn things, you're not.
As long you are anti science, my main interest is to study you and your retorics.
By the way, you know that you are quite rude, don't you know that? So when you whine over how people are rude aganst you, I just laugh.
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI work 12 hour days, when I get the time to give it a good reading
and now you have read them ...?
You said you would be happy to talk through this so perhaps start by answering my questions to clarify what you mean?
-let the talks begin!
you'll get better responces than if I just glance at it.
Kelly
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by KellyJayInstead of pretending you are good in science while debating here, why not use some good hours, instead of debating some hours a day, reading books and learn something so you don't have to pretend anymore?
I work 12 hour days, when I get the time to give it a good reading
you'll get better responces than if I just glance at it.
Kelly
18 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton”I don’t understand your metaphor of “apples and oranges” in this context: exactly what are the “apples” and what are the “oranges” you are referring to here that you claim that they claim are “the same thing”?
[b]….My thoughts on dating methods are that people these included it
seems like to compare apples and oranges and claim they are the
same thing.
..…
I don’t understand your metaphor of “apples and oranges” in this context: exactly what are the “apples” and what are the “oranges” you are referring to here that you claim that they claim ...[text shortened]... diotic as claiming that it is a “huge assumption” that their was no Santa one million years ago![/b]
If what you are referring to by “apples and oranges” are the different dating techniques than they are VERY CLEARLY NOT claiming they are all the same thing! -that’s why they would refer to them at “DIFFERENT” dating methods -I challenge you to point out where they are claiming they are the same thing! But if what you are referring to is NOT the different dating techniques then what are you referring to here?”
I dislike the idea that people take tests that are done in the here and
now and carry on as if under different circumstances they will show the
same thing the same way, it isn’t something that I can buy into. Going
back to radiometric dating over time in the short term does not
necessarily mean the same thing over time in the long term is true.
So grabbing an item in the here and now, looking at it under conditions
of a very short or limited amount of time does not mean if you test
other things the same way those tests will yield the same accurate
results!
Time can cause the results to vary, a different substance can cause
the results to vary, and as such it is less reliable. Yet people will see
what they want to see, if it is there or not, so what I mean by apples
and oranges is that a test to detect a very short amount of passage of
time, does not mean we can use the same type of test to detect
accurately a very long passage of time.
Kelly
18 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Which “HERD” are you referring too here? -they are all THEISTS!
[b]….My thoughts on dating methods are that people these included it
seems like to compare apples and oranges and claim they are the
same thing.
..…
I don’t understand your metaphor of “apples and oranges” in this context: exactly what are the “apples” and what are the “oranges” you are referring to here that you claim that they claim ...[text shortened]... diotic as claiming that it is a “huge assumption” that their was no Santa one million years ago![/b]
The “appeal” here from the beginning of their approach to this subject is that they just look at the data and conclude whatever that data points to -that is their and my “approach” to this subject because we are just all curious to know what the truth is. "
They are just people, period! The appeal of their opening statement
was that, because this method has been accepted by seemly everyone
for a long time now it is trustworthy. The pressure to accept was to join
the 'herd' be a part of those that accept this so we can move on and
accept the foundation of all things that come after! You should stop
looking at people as theist and just look at them as people, holding
a view about God does not mean that when you add 1 plus 1 you
will get 3, it only means you have a view about God. Our foundational
views, those things we measure truth by create for us our assumptions
and we build upon those things. Where we disagree does not make
us less than another, people are different, reality we live is the same,
we just may view from different starting points.
Kelly
18 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Which particular property of materials that effects the dating that you are referring to here? -I assume you are referring specifically to the ‘half-life‘? -and have you any evidence that it changes over time? "
[b]….My thoughts on dating methods are that people these included it
seems like to compare apples and oranges and claim they are the
same thing.
..…
I don’t understand your metaphor of “apples and oranges” in this context: exactly what are the “apples” and what are the “oranges” you are referring to here that you claim that they claim ...[text shortened]... diotic as claiming that it is a “huge assumption” that their was no Santa one million years ago![/b]
I have to be shown what your saying is trustworthy, not having a reason
to discount it is not a reason for accepting, it is only that there isn't any
reason to accept it! It becomes a major assumption, one that cannot be
shown false, yet accepted as truth nonetheless.
Kelly
18 Apr 09
About "Double truth":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_(religious)#.22Double_truth.22_theories
Especially I like this section:
"Other Christian sects, especially *Fundamentalists*, go to the other extreme, and urge their followers to reject any science that conflicts with the literal interpretation of scripture. In their view, real scientific evidence always supports the Bible, and scientists only hold beliefs contrary to the Bible because of evidence, and because scientists desire to find a reason instead of God, in order to continue their sinful life styles."
18 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…Going back to radiometric dating over time in the short term does not
[b]”I don’t understand your metaphor of “apples and oranges” in this context: exactly what are the “apples” and what are the “oranges” you are referring to here that you claim that they claim are “the same thing”?
If what you are referring to by “apples and oranges” are the different dating techniques than they are VERY CLEARLY NOT claiming they are all t ...[text shortened]... mean we can use the same type of test to detect
accurately a very long passage of time.
Kelly
necessarily mean the same thing over time in the long term is true.
..…[/b]
-but, as I have already indicated, it would be an idiotic assumption to make that the half-lives of chemical elements do change over time when there is neither no evidence nor any known explanation of what could cause such a change and when the half-life of each chemical element is alternately determined by the laws of physics.
Even if you deny that such an idiotic assumption is idiotic, how on earth do you take into account of the fact that several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in COMPLETE agreement with the radiometric dates? Reminder of this in the link:
“…There are over FORTY such [Radiometric dating] techniques, each using a DIFFERENT radioactive element or a DIFFERENT WAY of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques AGREE with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the COMPLETE agreement between radiometric dates AND OTHER dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers….”(my emphasis)
-surely this is PROOF that, at least for the oldest dates that can be made using non-radiometric dating methods, the half-lives of chemical elements did NOT change over that time period -how else can you explain why several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in COMPLETE agreement with the radiometric dates?
….Time can cause the results to vary, a different substance can cause
the results to vary, and as such it is less reliable.
.…
How would you know all this? Have you studied science?
….Yet people will see what they want to see, if it is there or not,
…
So you deny that the data is there? -creationists will not see what they don’t want to see, whether it is there or not.
18 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…They are just people, period! The appeal of their opening statement
[b]"Which “HERD” are you referring too here? -they are all THEISTS!
The “appeal” here from the beginning of their approach to this subject is that they just look at the data and conclude whatever that data points to -that is their and my “approach” to this subject because we are just all curious to know what the truth is. "
They are just people, pe erent, reality we live is the same,
we just may view from different starting points.
Kelly[/b]
was that, because this method has been accepted by seemly everyone
for a LONG time now it is trustworthy. ..… (my emphasis)
A “LONG” time? Actually, they didn’t accept theses conclusions 50 years ago if not much closer to the present.
What was the “appeal” for them to accept the new evidence and what it pointed to when that new evidence first came evident when it contradicted their beliefs? -answer, no appeal. The fact that they just accepted the new evidence DESPITE the fact it contradicted their religious beliefs back then actually proves they do NOT assume what has been accepted by seemly everyone for a LONG time must be trustworthy!
The people that demonstrate that they assume what has been accepted by seemly everyone for a LONG time must be trustworthy are those that accept the old literal interpretation of the Bible because that has been around for far longer than the scientific evidence and accept the old literal interpretation of the Bible DESPITE this evidence -this is the herd mentality in action. Those without this herd mentality would think for themselves and question old dogmas and tend to break away from this herd as a result.
18 Apr 09
Originally posted by KellyJay...not having a reason
[b]"Which particular property of materials that effects the dating that you are referring to here? -I assume you are referring specifically to the ‘half-life‘? -and have you any evidence that it changes over time? "
I have to be shown what your saying is trustworthy, not having a reason
to discount it is not a reason for accepting, it is only that t ...[text shortened]... major assumption, one that cannot be
shown false, yet accepted as truth nonetheless.
Kelly[/b]
to discount it is not a reason for accepting...
The reason for accepting it as trustworthy has already been explained by both me and the link -read the quote from the link again in my second to last post and my question below it.
18 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhy do I think he hasn't read the link you gave him? Why do I think he doesn't bother to read it? Why do I think he avoids to read it in order to continue to be ignorant? Why do I think he doesn't want to learn?
…Going back to radiometric dating over time in the short term does not
necessarily mean the same thing over time in the long term is true.
..…
-but, as I have already indicated, it would be an idiotic assumption to make that the half-lives of chemical elements do change over time when there is neither no evidence nor any known explanatio ...[text shortened]... ta is there? -creationists will not see what they don’t want to see, whether it is there or not.[/b]