All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by KellyJay
The topic was tree rings choosen by you.
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

….I presented you with reasons why tree rings were not time related, you
did NOT address them…
… (my emphasis)

Actually I did. Remainder of my comment in response to yours on page 36:

“…“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:

…KellyJay
.… (my emphasis)

-right, but they are USUALLY else how can the dating from tree rings be generally in good agreement with all the other DIFFERENT dating methods?
…”

-thus I pointed out here (above) the fact that they must be reasonably well correlated with time in most cases.

…. instead of the evidence that was presented?
…

I didn’t deny the evidence that presented but explained why it is irrelevant in my above comments.
Ok, so look at this bit of evidence presented: DIFFERENT dating methods are in general good agreement with each other. Why don’t you address that bit of evidence presented?

So I repeat my question from page 37:

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 account for how DIFFERENT dating methods are in good agreement with each other AND yet make ALL the dating methods give the WRONG dates!!! ?

Your silence on this question proves you have no real argument here.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[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]

Like I said you can buy into anything anyone tells you, I have to see the
reasons for it. You telling me different dating methods agree with each
other than the first one you pick has more to do with the enviroment than
time I'd say has greatly weakened your position in my opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like I said you can buy into anything anyone tells you, I have to see the
reasons for it. You telling me different dating methods agree with each
other than the first one you pick has more to do with the enviroment than
time I'd say has greatly weakened your position in my opinion.
Kelly

All dating methods use some intricacy of the environment. In conclusion, your argument is slipshod so you grasp at any irrational argument you can. The whole argument started based on an extremely hypocritical statement by you. When you said that he believes anything he was told did you not stop to think that you do everything your "designer" tells you? Another point is that when separate things agree with eachother it has always been accepted as good evidence. For example, police will often interrogate one witness at a time because if they have 2 or more witnesses saying the same thing then they have good evidence that what the witnesses are testifying to is true. In other words, he is not just believing what he was told he investigated and when he found many other dating methods that agreed with eachother he accepted.

Originally posted by tomtom232
All dating methods use some intricacy of the environment. In conclusion, your argument is slipshod so you grasp at any irrational argument you can. The whole argument started based on an extremely hypocritical statement by you. When you said that he believes anything he was told did you not stop to think that you do everything your "designer" tells you? An ...[text shortened]... vestigated and when he found many other dating methods that agreed with eachother he accepted.

You are one in a long row that find KellyJay rather paranoic about people knowing about science. He himself certainly not.

He accuse others to not thinking 'outside the box', unless of course he thinks into KJ's box. Because what KJ thinks is absolutely right, despite he just has opinions. Others just believes what other are told, but wht KJ's himself are told he believes in blindly. Or could it be that KJ's has invented evrything himslef?

His opinions are nearer the truth than thousands (millions?) of scientists during hundreds of years have produced in science development.

He doesn't belive in science. He rejects well understood dating methods, like radiometric methods, dendrochronolgy, and any other method scientists are using. It's always some minor detail he objects to. In reality he doesn't belive in the atomic theory at all.

He thinks he knows it all, but when asked (and asked again, and again), he produces an answer that quite clearly shows that he doesn't know much at all.
Example: "KJ, how old do you think the Universe is?" Answer: "Perhaps thousands of years, perhaps billions of years, I don't know." He doesn't know, but he says every other doesn't know either.

He believes that Noahs brought real living dinosaurs into the ark. He claims that they only were young specimens, and the were not carnivores, they were vegetarians. I would like to see a living vegetarian T-Rex 🙂

He is quite amusing. I often laugh aloud. I put up his strangest postings at the billboard at work, and they seems to enjoy his mindbogglers a lot.

For me he is a pathetic figure. I'm interested of what he writes because of his retorics. It is used by many representants of marginal groups, like militant vegans, astrologists, neo-nazis, and other groups. KJ teach me his methodology of reason. When these kind of groups have weapons, I'm scared, but most of them is quite harmless. KJ is harmless.

Originally posted by tomtom232
All dating methods use some intricacy of the environment. In conclusion, your argument is slipshod so you grasp at any irrational argument you can. The whole argument started based on an extremely hypocritical statement by you. When you said that he believes anything he was told did you not stop to think that you do everything your "designer" tells you? An ...[text shortened]... vestigated and when he found many other dating methods that agreed with eachother he accepted.

I suggest you go back a little more, this debate has been going on for
quite some time. With respect to your police argument, if you want to
view evidence as witnesses speaking you have missed the point! We
were looking at the claim several different versions of dating methods agree
with each other, the first one selected to review was tree rings. If you read
the post you'll see that tree rings don't even have to agree with tree rings
and the reasons for that have nothing at all to do with the passage of
time! So if that is true, who cares if people think tree rings support the
belief that all dating methods agree with each other? It isn't shipshod it
is sticking to the topic at hand.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I suggest you go back a little more, this debate has been going on for
quite some time. With respect to your police argument, if you want to
view evidence as witnesses speaking you have missed the point! We
were looking at the claim several different versions of dating methods agree
with each other, the first one selected to review was tree rings. If yo ...[text shortened]... methods agree with each other? It isn't shipshod it
is sticking to the topic at hand.
Kelly

I think the problem here is that you expect the dating methods to be exact. All dating methods are used to come up with an estimate, not an exact, of the age of the object in question. With trees it is tree rings with isotopes it is the half-life phenomenon ect ect. If we experiment over and over again and find these methods to be fairly accurate BY EXPERIENCE and we find that they are in general good agreement with eachother, when we cannot use experience, then that is pretty good evidence as to whether or not they work. In conclusion, I would estimate that your argument is non existent and hypothesize that you do not know very much about science and to cover up your lack of knowledge you fantasize that everything was designed by some all powerful creator.

Originally posted by tomtom232
In conclusion, I would estimate that your argument is non existent and hypothesize that you do not know very much about science and to cover up your lack of knowledge you fantasize that everything was designed by some all powerful creator.

One of his most famous fantazies is the one about Noa brought every animals, in paris, even dinosaurs (!) 😵 with him on the ark!
Q: "So why didn't the T-rex eat every other animal?" A: "Because there were no carnivores at the time! Not even T-rex!" 😕
Q: "In this ark, how could every animal (not to mention two of every specie) fit in the relatively small ark?" A: "Because they were brotught there as young ones!" 😕
Well I can go on and on about his fantazy, but you have to read his lines yourself to have a good laugh. 😀

Firstly he said it was acording to science, then he concluded that there were no evidence, then he argued about it was his opinion and therefore it must be true.

You're right, he has none knowledge about science, he doesn't believe in science.
He demands rock hard evidence (if not it is simply not true!) but cannot deliver anything but opinions himself (because he thinks outside the box, and therefore it must be true!).
He doesn't believe in what science friends are told, but he believes vlindly what his preacher tells him.

He doesn't even believes in tree rings! 😀

Originally posted by tomtom232
I think the problem here is that you expect the dating methods to be exact. All dating methods are used to come up with an estimate, not an exact, of the age of the object in question. With trees it is tree rings with isotopes it is the half-life phenomenon ect ect. If we experiment over and over again and find these methods to be fairly accurate BY EXPERI ...[text shortened]... your lack of knowledge you fantasize that everything was designed by some all powerful creator.

…I think the problem here is that you expect the dating methods to be exact...…

-or so he makes out.
Obviously no measurement is infinitely exact and virtually no measurement is always accurate but that doesn’t mean you cannot rational conclude that some measurements are in bold parts about correct by cross-referencing them (especially DIFFERENT types of measurements) to see how well they agree with each other.
I think he must know this.

So why does he use this non-argument against a measurement of it not being infinitely exact nor always accurate despite the fact that it is proven to be a good estimate for most of the time as shown by the fact that completely DIFFERENT kinds of measurements tally well with it?
-Here’s a clue, he is selective about which measurements he opposes; do you see him disagreeing about measurements of, say, the circumference of the Earth? Why doesn’t he suggest that the circumference of the Earth could credibly be just 10km for all we know because if you pick any ONE type of measurement of the circumference of the Earth you can pick holes in it by pointing out that the measurement is not infinitely exact and repeating the same measurement does not always give the exact same result and has limited accuracy while completely ignoring the significance of the fact that very DIFFERENT kinds of measurement of the circumference of the Earth are in general in good agreement with each other? -this is what he is basically doing with his rhetoric about the dating methods.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I think the problem here is that you expect the dating methods to be exact...…

-or so he makes out.
Obviously no measurement is infinitely exact and virtually no measurement is always accurate but that doesn’t mean you cannot rational conclude that the measurements are in bold parts about correct by cross-referencing them (especially DI ...[text shortened]... measurement of the circumference of the Earth are in general in good agreement with each other?[/b]

I would guess that he only uses this non-argument against measurments that interfere with his belief in a creator.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I think the problem here is that you expect the dating methods to be exact. All dating methods are used to come up with an estimate, not an exact, of the age of the object in question. With trees it is tree rings with isotopes it is the half-life phenomenon ect ect. If we experiment over and over again and find these methods to be fairly accurate BY EXPERI ...[text shortened]... your lack of knowledge you fantasize that everything was designed by some all powerful creator.

Exact no, however I would like dating methods to at least have something
to do with time, that would be helpful.
Kelly

Originally posted by tomtom232
I think the problem here is that you expect the dating methods to be exact. All dating methods are used to come up with an estimate, not an exact, of the age of the object in question. With trees it is tree rings with isotopes it is the half-life phenomenon ect ect. If we experiment over and over again and find these methods to be fairly accurate BY EXPERI ...[text shortened]... your lack of knowledge you fantasize that everything was designed by some all powerful creator.

With what you have seen so far at least with tree rings do you think we
can dismiss tree rings as an accurate dating method all other points aside?
Kelly

Originally posted by tomtom232
I think the problem here is that you expect the dating methods to be exact. All dating methods are used to come up with an estimate, not an exact, of the age of the object in question. With trees it is tree rings with isotopes it is the half-life phenomenon ect ect. If we experiment over and over again and find these methods to be fairly accurate BY EXPERI ...[text shortened]... your lack of knowledge you fantasize that everything was designed by some all powerful creator.

I'm not bringing up a creator in my arguing against tree rings, why are you?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I think the problem here is that you expect the dating methods to be exact...…

-or so he makes out.
Obviously no measurement is infinitely exact and virtually no measurement is always accurate but that doesn’t mean you cannot rational conclude that some measurements are in bold parts about correct by cross-referencing them (especially D ...[text shortened]... with each other? -this is what he is basically doing with his rhetoric about the dating methods.[/b]

Again, you attempt to avoid that concerns I have presented and instead
pile on discussions about me personally, you see the weakness in that?
Kelly

Originally posted by tomtom232
I would guess that he only uses this non-argument against measurments that interfere with his belief in a creator.

The only one bringing up the creator in this discussion on tree rings are you
guys not I, I guess that is why you do not want to admit your wrong you
are afraid of some other topic of discussion. Why not just avoid that one
all together, no matter, if all the dating methods were proven right or
wrong it does not change the God debate, so stick with the topic at hand
and avoid this personal stuff if you please.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't believe in everything from nothing, have you seen that occur?
Kelly

How can I discuss anything involving science when you don't believe in science? Totally pointless.

Instead you believe in dinos omboard the Noah's ark. That's not science, and therefore you see that as perfectly True.

When you have learnt something about science, then get back and ask the same question again.