08 May 09
8 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…You are looking at a result, you are looking at a reading you assume that
You are missing my point!
You are looking at a result, you are looking at a reading you assume that
all things that got us this reading does not in any way shape or form
alter the truth of your assumptions. Let’s look at CPUs for example, over
time with that is suggested as normal use a CPU will degrade, we can also
through stress also get the CPU to ...[text shortened]... has to be acknowledge we really do not know for sure if we
intend to be honest about it.
Kelly
all things that got us this reading does not in any way shape or form
alter the truth of your ASSUMPTIONS...…
You now replaced the word “THINGS” (which is the word you used before) with the word “ASSUMPTIONS” without specifying exactly what you are referring to by either. I asked you what you were referring to by “THINGS” in my last post and to give just one example and you haven’t.
Ok, let me rephrase/adapt the questions you still haven’t answered:
What kind of “ASSUMPTIONS” are you referring to above that, if wrong, could still explain how DIFFERENT dating methods are in good agreement with each other?
Can you give a specific example of just ONE of these “ASSUMPTIONS” that, even if it was wrong, would still explain how DIFFERENT dating methods are in good agreement with each other AND yet make all the dating methods give the WRONG dates!!! ?
….Let’s look at CPUs for example, over
time with that is suggested as normal use a CPU will degrade, we can also
through stress also get the CPU to appear to have been aged …. so simply seeing how the CPU reads out will not really give you a clear vision of how much use the CPU
actually has gone through over time.
...…
Ok, there are two things wrong with this:
1, measuring the degradation of the behaviour of CPU is not one of the scientifically recognised dating methods and wouldn’t be analogous to any of the scientifically recognised dating methods because the changes that occur in a CPU don’t occur at a fixed rate nor would it be practical and reliable to predict and then measure how quickly those changes would occur to take into account this variable rate of change because, as you said yourself, it is dependent on usage.
2, CPU will degrade faster if they are USED more often because of heating effects and ionisation effects etc as electric power is drawn through the circuitry. This “USED more often” has no analogy with, say, the half-life of a chemical element in a layer of rock else, if you claim it does, who or what is “USING” the chemical element and exactly how would that change the chemical element’s half-life? -I mean, explain to us the exact physical process that would do this.
….My complaint about time is just we simply do not know over time if what
we are looking at was really CAUSED by just time!
… (my emphasis)
Who said anything about changes being “CAUSED” by time itself?
The half-life of a chemical element is explained by the way the laws of physics relate to the probabilistic behaviour of the atomic nucleus splitting over a given period of time -it just wouldn’t be correct to say: “the half-life of a chemical element is CAUSED by time”! If the half-life was simply a function of time and only time and wasn’t related to any other thing such as the atomic structure of the particular atomic nuclei then that wouldn’t explain at all why different chemical elements have different half-life’s.
The appearance of rings in the wood of trees is caused by the tree's differing wood-growth response to the differences in the weather of the seasons and not literally “CAUSED” by time itself for if, hypothetically, there was never any difference between the weather throughout the year (and thus no “seasons&ldquo😉 then there would be no annual tree rings no matter how much time pasted!
And you still haven’t answered my first question:
How do you explain why several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in good agreement with the radiometric dates if you claim that the halve-lives of the chemical elements, inexplicably (because it would break the laws of physics) and without any known cause, changed significantly with time?
-and “good agreement” above means with each other.
Should I take your non-answer to mean you cannot explain this even in your own mind? If so, then this evidence clearly demonstrates your claim to be false.
08 May 09
It's the KellyJay retorics. When he is cornered, he avoid the questions so noone will notice that he doesn't know. However, that may work in church, but not in real life.
He doesn't know. And he knows that. He put on his blinds and hope that the questions will go away.
He still believes there were dinosaurs in Noah's ark, but he doesn't know anything, it's just his opinion. He denies even that it is his religion, it's just his opinion, he keeps saying.
He doesn't know much about science, but he loves being here with the big boys. It makes him feel 'scientific', perhaps one of the big boys too.
09 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarWho did you adress? Me?
Any time you make a statement like this you are invoking beliefs that can't be directly tested. In other words, you are making a statement of belief which can't be tested. It appears to me that such statements are inherently religious.
Please use the "Reply and Quote" to avoid this confusion...
09 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThink of a math formula solving an issue or problem as long as you know
[b]…
having to deal with
processes over time I do understand that if you introduce THINGS into
your processes without tracking them …
..… (my emphasis)
What kind of “THINGS” are you referring to above that could allow DIFFERENT dating methods to be in good agreement with each other?
Can you give a specific example of just ONE of these ...[text shortened]... f physics) would result in DIFFERENT dating methods being NOT in good agreement with each other![/b]
what variables to worry about you can come up with an answer to the
question, now if there were variables left out you were not aware of you
answers would still be correct with what you know, but the true questions
answer or the true way to deal with the issue at the heart of the matter
would still elude you. You’d still have the correct answers to the variables
you have, the work math still pan out; however, the truth would not be
forth coming. The fact that the questions are being asked about things
that are beyond our ability to verify should simply suggest to you that
accepting anything as truth is a matter of beliefs.
I’ll look for the tree ring info I promised later today.
Kelly
10 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is built into tree ring study that is possible for noise or other factors to
[b]…
I just want to make sure that
tree rings agree with tree rings before we start worrying about if the
tree rings agree with something else.
..…
Tree rings do agree with tree rings else we would have surely all heard of the “scientific mystery” of the tree rings that contradict and it would be inexplicable if we didn’t. I presume you me?…"
-and “good agreement” in the above obviously means good agreement “with each other”.[/b]
give a non-desirable variation when looking at tree rings, “replication.” This
suggests already things can affect the tree that may give misleading
results so the work around there is sample several trees at once, which is
wise in one respect, but if one tree can give undesirable results how does
one know when they are looking at desirable results? Is it because you
are getting the readings you want/like?
The study of Tree rings growth “dendrochronology” is a technique that has
not been around all that long it started in the early part of the 20th
century by A.E. Douglass an Arizona guy, the thought goes that wide rings
of certain trees produced rings during wet years, and narrow ones during
dry years. This again goes back to my point if there are several dry and
wet periods of time through a year does this produce mutable rings, do
floods and are there other factors that can contribute to the introduction of
rings in a tree growth, are there a variation of factors that the trees may be
sensitive to?
“It is an oversimplification to say that dendrochronology is ring counting based on rainfall and the physiology of trees. Many other factors are considered. This is especially true with the old bristlecones, as their growth can be affected by slope gradient, sun, wind, soil properties, temperature and snow accumulation.”
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
So now we can see that some trees can be affected by other factors than
time, it seems to me that it is also being suggested that some trees are
more sensitive to other factors than other trees which means mixed
readings due to various and sundry factors.
I thought this interesting:
http://tree.ltrr.arizona.edu/skeletonplot/ringanomalies.htm
“Ring-Growth Anomalies
Question: If one tree ring is grown each year ("annual rings"😉, why not just count the rings?
Answer: Ring growth is not always annual:
Occasionally, a ring isn't grown during a year -- called "locally absent" or "missing" for that year
Occasionally, more than one ring is grown during a year -- called "false" for that year”
Again, it is accepted that we can have a anomalies and yet you want to
use this as a bases of fact for time. Tree rings do not always agree with
tree rings because of various anomalies can give false or misleading
readings and those are just the ones we are aware of now.
Kelly
10 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you don't think that dendrochronology is a method worth using? You don't believe in dendrochronology at all, do you?
It is built into tree ring study that is possible for noise or other factors to
give a non-desirable variation when looking at tree rings, “replication.” This
suggests already things can affect the tree that may give misleading
results so the work around there is sample several trees at once, which is
wise in one respect, but if one tree can give undesi ...[text shortened]... e false or misleading
readings and those are just the ones we are aware of now.
Kelly
But still you belive in far weaker proofs, as an example that there were dinosaurs in the ark of Noah?
Now here is what you are doing:
Dendrochronology backs up radiometric mearsuring, which you don't believe in. Therefore you chose to don't believe in dendrochronology, right?
Radiometrology backs up the time scale of Earth being 4.6 millionof years, which you don't believe in. Therefore you chose to don't believe in radiometrology, right?
The atomic theory backs up radiometrology, which you don't believe in. Therefore you chose to don't believe in atomic theory, right?
But you believe in the letter of the bible, because that book back up your weired beliefs. Therefore you chose to believe in all funny stories in the bible, right? And Noah, and his ark, and also that he brought dinosaurs with him and all? You belive that all humanity is coming from one family, therefore we are inbred all of us. Same thing with all animals, but they are coming from two example fo each specie, only two, every animal living today, meaning inbreading of evry lif forms in our fauna. You also belive that every animal was vegetarian before the flood, and some carnivores after, just like that? And you believe that two animals of every kind was brought with him, in a small boat, measuring only 150 meters in length, 25 meters in width, and in three floors. This boat was made by an 600 years old man. and..., and..., and...
And you believe in this without any shred of evidence, that this even could be done? But you don't believe in annular rings of trees?
This is far out of proportion... You cannot be serious...
10 May 09
We as a species using science have put men on the moon, we have built a telescope than can peer into the distant universe, we built two space craft that have now flown beyond the edge of our solar system, we've landed craft on the nearest planet and analysed soil and rock samples from it's surface, we've flown aircaft at hypersonic speed, we've advanced in medicine so that disease that would've killed us 100yrs we don't need to worry about anymore, we can perfom open heart surgery on people, hell we can even take their heart out and give them an artifical one.
In our day to day lives, we can drive cars and watch tv, we can use planes to fly to almost any destination in the world, your cup of morning tea or coffee is made using a kettle powered from the national grid, we can even sit and have this debate whilst sitting in our own homes in different parts of the world simultaneously.
But that evolution, and dendochronology, radiometrology and atomic theory science has got that all wrong beacuse it doesn't fit in with what i believe. Can you not stop and think for one moment that maybe you've got it wrong??
10 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…as long as you know
Think of a math formula solving an issue or problem as long as you know
what variables to worry about you can come up with an answer to the
question, now if there were variables left out you were not aware of you
answers would still be correct with what you know, but the true questions
answer or the true way to deal with the issue at the heart of the ma ...[text shortened]... truth is a matter of beliefs.
I’ll look for the tree ring info I promised later today.
Kelly
what VARIABLES to worry about you can come up with an answer to the
question, now if there were VARIABLES left out you were not aware of
.… (my emphasis)
Now you are avoiding answering my question yet again by replacing the word “ASSUMPTIONS” (which is the word you used before) with the word “VARIABLES” without specifying exactly what you are referring to by either. I asked you what you were referring to by “ASSUMPTIONS” in my last post and “THINGS” by the post before that and to give just one example and you haven’t.
Ok, let me rephrase/adapt the questions you still haven’t answered:
What kind of “ASSUMPTIONS/THINGS/VARIABLES” are you referring to above that, if wrong/existed, could still explain how DIFFERENT dating methods are in good agreement with each other?
Can you give a specific example of just ONE of these “ASSUMPTIONS/THINGS/VARIABLES” that, even if it was wrong/existed, would still explain how DIFFERENT dating methods are in good agreement with each other AND yet make all the dating methods give the WRONG dates!!! ?
Note that whether any “VARIABLE” in the above is unknown is irrelevant to the above question -you cannot give me even ONE hypothetical unknown credible variable that would account for why DIFFERENT dating methods are in good agreement with each other and you must know it. I think you are just avoiding this question because you know you are wrong.
10 May 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell said 🙂
We as a species using science have put men on the moon, we have built a telescope than can peer into the distant universe, we built two space craft that have now flown beyond the edge of our solar system, we've landed craft on the nearest planet and analysed soil and rock samples from it's surface, we've flown aircaft at hypersonic speed, we've advanced ...[text shortened]... at i believe. Can you not stop and think for one moment that maybe you've got it wrong??
10 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJay…“Ring-Growth Anomalies
It is built into tree ring study that is possible for noise or other factors to
give a non-desirable variation when looking at tree rings, “replication.” This
suggests already things can affect the tree that may give misleading
results so the work around there is sample several trees at once, which is
wise in one respect, but if one tree can give undesi ...[text shortened]... e false or misleading
readings and those are just the ones we are aware of now.
Kelly
Question: If one tree ring is grown each year ("annual rings", why not just count the rings?
Answer: Ring growth is not ALWAYS annual:
.… (my emphasis)
-right, but it is USUALLY else how can the dating from tree rings be generally in good agreement with all the other DIFFERENT dating methods? -the fact it IS generally in good agreement with all the other DIFFERENT dating methods renders you attempt to pick holes in the tree ring data because of the occasional complicating factor/anomaly futile. Watches are occasionally not in agreement with each other; sometimes a watch runs a bit too slow or too fast or breaks down completely -so watches cannot generally be in good agreement with each other? 😛
….Occasionally, a ring isn't grown during a year -- called "locally absent" or "missing" for that year
Occasionally, more than one ring is grown during a year -- called "false" for that year”
...…
“Occasionally” is the operative word here for the reason why I just explained above.
10 May 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobWho are you talking to?
We as a species using science have put men on the moon, we have built a telescope than can peer into the distant universe, we built two space craft that have now flown beyond the edge of our solar system, we've landed craft on the nearest planet and analysed soil and rock samples from it's surface, we've flown aircaft at hypersonic speed, we've advanced ...[text shortened]... at i believe. Can you not stop and think for one moment that maybe you've got it wrong??
KJ
10 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonEvery dating method will stand or fall on its own merits, you wanted me to
[b]…“Ring-Growth Anomalies
Question: If one tree ring is grown each year ("annual rings", why not just count the rings?
Answer: Ring growth is not ALWAYS annual:
.… (my emphasis)
-right, but it is USUALLY else how can the dating from tree rings be generally in good agreement with all the other DIFFERENT dating methods? -the fact it IS
“Occasionally” is the operative word here for the reason why I just explained above.[/b]
address tree rings so I did. I gave you valid reasons why tree rings have
issues, these didn't come from creation sites, the concerns I told you
about the very ones you denouced by the way were all validated in my
opinion. You have a source of information that can add to or take away
lines you have to count and there are a variety of things that can affect the
rings we are aware of, which means again more could be there we are not
aware of.
Your example of a watch tracks time in the here and now, it does not
measure something in the distant past as such its running either fast or
slow can be show true or false by placing against a true standard means
of measuring time that does not change.
You do not have something like that for looking into the distant past you
only have methods that if they were completely wrong, you'd never know it.
Kelly
10 May 09
9 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…I gave you valid reasons why tree rings have
Every dating method will stand or fall on its own merits, you wanted me to
address tree rings so I did. I gave you valid reasons why tree rings have
issues, these didn't come from creation sites, the concerns I told you
about the very ones you denouced by the way were all validated in my
opinion. You have a source of information that can add to or take ...[text shortened]... nt past you
only have methods that if they were completely wrong, you'd never know it.
Kelly
issues, these didn't come from creation sites, the CONCERNS I told you
about the very ones you DENOUNCED by the way were all validated.… (my emphasis)
Which “CONCERNS” are you referring to here? -The facts presented by the website? -if so, I didn’t “DENOUNCE” them; I agreed with them all. What I “DENOUNCED” was what I assume you were obviously implying in your last post (which was that tree ring data cannot generally be trusted) and which the website didn’t say -read my post again.
….You do not have something like that for looking into the distant past you
only have methods that if they were completely wrong, you'd NEVER know it.
Kelly
...… (my emphasis)
Wrong! Of course we can know it if it is wrong! If it was wrong then DIFFERENT dating methods wouldn’t generally be in good agreement with each other -that’s just ONE way we would know that they are all wrong. So I repeat my questions that you still haven’t answered:
1, How do you explain why several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in good agreement with the radiometric dates if you claim that the halve-lives of the chemical elements, inexplicably (because it would break the laws of physics) and without any known cause, changed significantly with time?
-and “good agreement” in the above obviously means good agreement with each other (unlike what you suggested).
And:
2, Can you give a specific example of just ONE of these “ASSUMPTIONS/THINGS/VARIABLES” that you have been referring to in these posts that, even if it was wrong/existed, would still explain how DIFFERENT dating methods are in good agreement with each other AND yet make ALL the dating methods give the WRONG dates!!! ?
Your obvious inability to give even a single example to answer question 2 above (as proved my your non-answer to it), clearly disproves that you can demonstrate (by reason/evidence) your claim to be true that all the dating methods credibly could all be giving the wrong dates. Your claim is therefore groundless.