12 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJay…You think it usually agrees is a statement of faith
"-right, but it is USUALLY "
It is based upon the stresses that the trees encounter as the examples
that were given showed you! Since tree all enounter many of the same
stresses they will have some agreement, but that again does not mean
that time is causing it! You think it usually agrees is a statement of faith
on your part.
Kelly
on your part. ..…
Nope; it is based on the fact that it is in general good agreement with other DIFFERENT dating methods -no “faith” required -just science.
12 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…You have not debunked my complaints ..…
"-“complaints” which have all been debunked -and, also, your inability to answer questions 1 and 2 debunks your central claim that all the dating methods could creditably be all wrong."
You have not debunked my complaints instead you went after my
motivation for disagreeing, the only one with a creditably issue here is you.
Kelly[/b]
I have debunked them by showing them to be irrelevant -read my first post of page 37 again for an example.
I have also noticed you didn’t address the “…and, also, your inability to answer questions 1 and 2 debunks your central claim that all the dating methods could creditably be all wrong…” comment that you mentioned in your post -I wonder why? 😛 -answer, you have no answers.
12 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAgin I come to think of some Pentecostal Cultist fundamentalist who actually believe that there were dinosaurs in the ark of Noah - and the same person says that he thinks critically! 😀
I think you have drank the Kool-Aid and no longer can think
critically.
The only proof he has is that it's his opinion, and therefore it must be true! LOLROFLMAO !!!
13 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonChoosing to ignore information about how your dating time method has
[b]…You have not debunked my complaints ..…
I have debunked them by showing them to be irrelevant -read my first post of page 37 again for an example.
I have also noticed you didn’t address the “…and, also, your inability to answer questions 1 and 2 debunks your central claim that all the dating methods could creditably be all wrong…” comment that you mentioned in your post -I wonder why? 😛 -answer, you have no answers.[/b]
nothing to do with time is not debunking it, it is sticking your head in the
sand to moving on your merry way after you have been shown your wrong.
Kelly
13 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI have to take your methods one at a time, so far your 0/1 in my opinion.
[b]…You have not debunked my complaints ..…
I have debunked them by showing them to be irrelevant -read my first post of page 37 again for an example.
I have also noticed you didn’t address the “…and, also, your inability to answer questions 1 and 2 debunks your central claim that all the dating methods could creditably be all wrong…” comment that you mentioned in your post -I wonder why? 😛 -answer, you have no answers.[/b]
Kelly
13 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJay…I HAVE to take your methods ONE at a time
I have to take your methods one at a time, so far your 0/1 in my opinion.
Kelly
..… (my emphasis)
Why do you HAVE to take each of the dating methods ONE at a time?
Is it because you cannot stomach what they clearly show when you take them at a consistent whole with DIFFERENT dating methods being in general good agreement with each other?
-so you HAVE to systematically take one at a time in order to ignore this general good agreement so that you can systematically convince yourself that each and every one could be totally wrong?
How could they credibly ALL be completely wrong when they all are in general good agreement with each other despite each of them being quite different and relying on different phenomenon? (one relies on the half-life phenomenon and another on a biological phenomenon etc) -this is the question you are avoiding here by taking each of the dating methods ONE at a time for there is only one glaring answer to this question: they cannot credibly ALL be completely wrong.
14 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI don't know maybe in your world you can assume everything your told is
[b]…I HAVE to take your methods ONE at a time
..… (my emphasis)
Why do you HAVE to take each of the dating methods ONE at a time?
Is it because you cannot stomach what they clearly show when you take them at a consistent whole with DIFFERENT dating methods being in general good agreement with each other?
-so you HAVE to systematically tak ...[text shortened]... there is only one glaring answer to this question: they cannot credibly ALL be completely wrong.[/b]
the truth, and that is all it takes for everything to pass as science! If you
cannot checkout what is being passed off as your basic underlining
assumptions, than everything you build all your truth upon you is not
science, you playing in beliefs!
Kelly
14 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI wonder who tought you logic. In evolution occurs because of natural selection. Why would a human who has a worse eye structure survive better than one who has a better eye structure? I also would like to ask who this designer of yours is if not a spiritual creator?
Another here claims the octopus's eye creates issues for a design, but
I have yet to see a reason for that presented that makes sense. If
we accept our bodies do change over time due to the environment and
others factors, why would it be hard to accept that even if both
eyes were at one point the same, one changed over time and got
worse while another ...[text shortened]... ken place over time, for the reasons they claim have
occurred, it is nearly laughable.
Kelly
14 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayYou mean, your opinions are the pure Truth? And this is without evidence of any kind and still the pure Truth?
I don't know maybe in your world you can assume everything your told is
the truth, and that is all it takes for everything to pass as science! If you
cannot checkout what is being passed off as your basic underlining
assumptions, than everything you build all your truth upon you is not
science, you playing in beliefs!
Kelly
Others views you neglect because they have just been told lies?
Who are you? God himself?
Satan whispers in your ears...
14 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….I don't know maybe in your world you can assume everything your told is the truth...…
I don't know maybe in your world you can assume everything your told is
the truth, and that is all it takes for everything to pass as science! If you
cannot checkout what is being passed off as your basic underlining
assumptions, than everything you build all your truth upon you is not
science, you playing in beliefs!
Kelly
Like I assume everything the Bible says is the truth?
I do not “assume everything your told is the truth” but rather would want to know if what is being said is based on reason/evidence (not necessarily based on formal ‘science‘ although, of course, that helps).
If I “assume everything your told is the truth” thus have no independent and critical thinking of my own then I probably would have become a theist like yourself as most poeple I know are theists.
….and that is all it takes for everything to pass as SCIENCE! If you
CANNOT CHECKOUT what is being passed off as your basic underlining
assumptions, than everything you build all your truth upon you is NOT
science…
… (my emphasis)
Sometimes part of what defines REAL “SCIENCE” (i.e. excluding pseudoscience) is that you CAN sometimes “CHECKOUT” your basic underlining assumptions.
Example: one underlining assumption of each dating method may be that, generally, on the whole, it gives a reasonably good estimate of the age. And you can ”CHECKOUT” this underlining assumption by seeing if completely DIFFERENT dating methods are producing results that are in general good agreement with each other -and they DO produce results that are in general good agreement with each other -so what is the problem you have with this vindication of the dating methods?
In what way doesn’t this vindication of the dating methods show that they are “NOT science“ (as you said above)? -answer, this vindication confirms the dating methods are part of real science.
14 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI do not bring the Bible up in the spiritual forum, you and others here seem
[b]….I don't know maybe in your world you can assume everything your told is the truth...…
Like I assume everything the Bible says is the truth?
I do not “assume everything your told is the truth” but rather would want to know if what is being said is based on reason/evidence (not necessarily based on formal ‘science‘ although, of course, t ...[text shortened]... ou said above)? -answer, this vindication confirms the dating methods are part of real science.[/b]
to quite a bit mainly because when the facts or how you come by your so
called facts come into question you attempt to shift the discussion away
from your point of view over to my religion. A sign of weakness on your
part!
Kelly
14 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe topic was tree rings choosen by you.
[b]….I don't know maybe in your world you can assume everything your told is the truth...…
Like I assume everything the Bible says is the truth?
I do not “assume everything your told is the truth” but rather would want to know if what is being said is based on reason/evidence (not necessarily based on formal ‘science‘ although, of course, t ...[text shortened]... ou said above)? -answer, this vindication confirms the dating methods are part of real science.[/b]
I presented you with reasons why tree rings were not time related, you
did not address them, simply blew them off. So how am I to take you
seriously, when you don't stay on topic instead attempt to turn the
discussion into why I believe the things I do instead of the evidence that
was presented?
Kelly