19 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat will you do when the 2nd doctor agrees with the 1st one? To you get a 3rd opinion?
If you have half a brain you get 2nd opinions, so yes! You just accept what
everyone tells you, if you don't question your drinking the Kolaid.
Kelly
Because, if they agree, then you usually become very suspicios...
19 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayProper Knob asked you among other things:
If you have half a brain you get 2nd opinions, so yes! You just accept what
everyone tells you, if you don't question your drinking the Kolaid.
Kelly
“…When you turn your computer on do you ring up the national grid and question them about the science behind powering a whole country?..”
…If you have HALF a brain you get 2nd opinions, so YES!
..… (my emphasis)
So does that mean you DO ring up the national grid and question them about the science behind powering a whole country when you turn your computer on?
If not, doesn’t that mean that, by your own assertion, you must have less than “HALF a brain” because “If you have HALF a brain you get 2nd opinions”?
If not, is this because you know the science behind powering a whole country is correct?
If the science behind powering a whole country can be correct then why can’t other sciences be correct? (such as the science of dating methods).
P.S. the fact that you cannot (note that I don’t say “will not&rdquo😉 answer most of my recent questions is very revealing -it shows you have lost the argument and you know it.
19 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAgain, are you with this line of questions once again trying to make me the
Proper Knob asked you among other things:
“…When you turn your computer on do you ring up the national grid and question them about the science behind powering a whole country?..”
[b]…If you have HALF a brain you get 2nd opinions, so YES!
..… (my emphasis)
So does that mean you DO ring up the national grid and question them about the ...[text shortened]... t of my recent questions is very revealing -it shows you have lost the argument and you know it.[/b]
subject instead of the error or judgment you have made by giving the
data meaning it shouldn't have? When your questions attempt to make
me the subject they are not going to be answered, I'm here to discuss the
data, and right now the topic of our data is centered on tree rings your
topic! If you cannot defend your position that is completely your fault not
mine.
Bottom line, you are looking at something that affected by several factors
and those factors are not bound by time, and you are using the results of
those to attempt to measure time.
Kelly
19 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…When your questions attempt to make
Again, are you with this line of questions once again trying to make me the
subject instead of the error or judgment you have made by giving the
data meaning it shouldn't have? When your questions attempt to make
me the subject they are not going to be answered, I'm here to discuss the
data, and right now the topic of our data is centered on tree rings ...[text shortened]... not bound by time, and you are using the results of
those to attempt to measure time.
Kelly
ME the subject they are not going to be answered
..… (my emphasis)
Is that your excuse? Nothing to do with the fact you have no answer to the questions? How can anyone point out the flaws in your reasoning using questions that don’t either implicitly nor explicitly refer to “you”? -answer, with very great difficulty -and you know it.
Ok, here is a question about tree ring data that doesn’t say the “you” word:
1, exactly what could a specific example be of just ONE assumption/thing/variable that even if it was wrong/existed, would still explain how the tree ring data is in good agreement with several other completely DIFFERENT dating methods AND yet make ALL the dating methods including the tree ring data give completely the WRONG dates!!! ?
Note that the above question (1) doesn’t explicitly refers to “you” although it may do implicitly but there is no way around that for it is impossible to ask “you“ a question without implicitly asking “you“ to answer it!
Also note that the above question (1) is primarily about the tree ring data and implies how other different dating methods may vindicate it.
Also note that nobody is claiming that the tree ring dating method is infinitely accurate but rather, like all the other dating methods, it can generally gives a good estimate.
-now for the non-answer…
19 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayMy point has already been adressed in this thread but just to adress your reply to me, I think you're mistaken when you say that
I'm of the opinion you have to look at each method on its own merit before
we can start worrying about does it matter if they agree with something
else. As with the tree ring example there are more to tree rings than
people let on about, yet they still use it as an example to suggest good
agreement.
Kelly
"I'm of the opinion you have to look at each method on its own merit before
we can start worrying about does it matter if they agree with something
else."
On the contrary, when dating methods based on very different methods agree with each other, the inaccuracies of one method are too small to bear significantly on its result. Unless you can define a factor that influences all those methods in the same way, the fact that these methods agree with each other is proof of their validity.
David
20 May 09
Originally posted by tomtom232It has been futile from the very beginning to discuss with Kelly. He don't want to learn, he has set his opinions, and new facts only confuses him.
Don't bother anymore Andrew. Kelly is obviously "of the opinion" and not of the facts.
He likes to mingle with science interested people, but he doesn't contribute very much. More than accational laughs. Like dinosarus on the ark of Noah, his deep distrust of tree rings, his unability to know the age of the universe yet having very strong opinions, his urge for rock hard proofs (that he doesn't understand) and his rock hard truths in his opinions.
It has been a pleasure to study his retorics. I see him as a worthy representant for christian fundamenatlists, and YECreationists.
Thank you KellyJay for this entertaining times. See ya in the Spiritual Forum!
20 May 09
Originally posted by DdVYou are telling me that if a dating method is shown to be weak or it is
My point has already been adressed in this thread but just to adress your reply to me, I think you're mistaken when you say that
[b]"I'm of the opinion you have to look at each method on its own merit before
we can start worrying about does it matter if they agree with something
else."
On the contrary, when dating methods based on very different met ...[text shortened]... way, the fact that these methods agree with each other is proof of their validity.
David[/b]
without much merit in its own right you'd still use it because it agrees with
others methods? That suggests to me that you want to see what you want
and you'll accept whatever it takes to support your postion no matter how
bad it is.
Kelly
20 May 09
Originally posted by tomtom232The fact is that tree rings have little to do with time as much as they
Don't bother anymore Andrew. Kelly is obviously "of the opinion" and not of the facts.
do other factors, that is the fact, you can dance around that all you want
but you are accepting something shown to be something other than an
accurate standard measure of time and attempting to make it one.
Kelly
20 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…You are telling me that if a dating method is shown to be WEAK or it is
You are telling me that if a dating method is shown to be weak or it is
without much merit in its own right you'd still use it because it agrees with
others methods? That suggests to me that you want to see what you want
and you'll accept whatever it takes to support your postion no matter how
bad it is.
Kelly
without much merit in its own right you'd still use it because it agrees with
others methods?
..… (my emphasis)
Where did he say it is “WEAK” and “without much merit”?
Tree ring data is vindicated (thus I suppose you can call that “strong&rdquo😉 in part BECAUSE it generally is in good agreement with completely different dating methods.
20 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, I'm telling you that when different dating methods agree, that's a good indication of their validity. You seem to think that just because you can point to certain possible inaccuracies in one method, this method is weak and without merit. As Andrew noted, that's not what I said. And if it's your own conclusion, it's an unsubstantiated one, because you fail to show that the inaccuracies you identify are outside an acceptable margin of error.
You are telling me that if a dating method is shown to be weak or it is
without much merit in its own right you'd still use it because it agrees with
others methods? That suggests to me that you want to see what you want
and you'll accept whatever it takes to support your postion no matter how
bad it is.
Kellygrr
So, contrary to what you seem to think, pointing to inaccuracies in one (or even pointing to unrelated inaccuracies in all dating methods) is not sufficient to support your claim that the data from dating methods can't be used to draw conclusions about age. You have only shown dat dendrochronology is not 100% accurate, but please note that nobody was claiming it is. Andrew and others have a strong point (dating methods based on very different principles agree with each other) to support their position that the data from dating methods do support conclusions about age, a point you haven't adressed yet.
So the question still stands: do you claim that dating methods don't agree with each other?
David
20 May 09
Originally posted by DdVIt is a good indication of their validity; however, again they all must
No, I'm telling you that when different dating methods agree, that's a good indication of their validity. You seem to think that just because you can point to certain possible inaccuracies in one method, this method is weak and without merit. As Andrew noted, that's not what I said. And if it's your own conclusion, it's an unsubstantiated one, because you fail t ...[text shortened]... on still stands: do you claim that dating methods don't agree with each other?
David
be viewed with skepticism to see if they are worth bringing to the table
to use as evidence for the notion of agreement, don’t you think? The
point is that you very well may have solid information to prove your
point using other dating methods, but tree rings should not be used as
one of them for the reasons I have given, they are not bound by time so
they are just rings that could have been caused by any number of
reasons all of which are not bound by certain times to be formed.
Dating with respect to how old the universe is or how old the earth
isn't an issue with me! I admit I do not know how old it is, and it
isn't important to me one way or another, but what is important are
people telling me the 'evidence' says this. I do not want to just accept
something simply because I'm told it is true. So I question, and when
the topic became tree rings you can see my doubts were justified
according to the very university that gave us the guy who first came
up with tree rings as a dating method.
I'm attempting to keep the discussion narrow, limiting it to those things
we can justify, tree rings according to that what I have posted is not
justified as a valid dating method, there are others we can touch upon
those too. If they prove as suspect as tree rings I'd say you have nothing
to hang your hat on, if they prove other wise you have a strong point.
Kelly
20 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm telling you tree rings as a dating method are weak for the reasons
[b]…You are telling me that if a dating method is shown to be WEAK or it is
without much merit in its own right you'd still use it because it agrees with
others methods?
..… (my emphasis)
Where did he say it is “WEAK” and “without much merit”?
Tree ring data is vindicated (thus I suppose you can call that “strong&rdquo😉 in part BECAUSE it generally is in good agreement with completely different dating methods.[/b]
already posted, again I can count the fur on a bear if it gives me the
same number as how many years I think the universe is old does that
mean bear fur is now a valid dating method simply because I can see
numbers I like, answer no! It has to be valid towards measuring time,
you want to use something that isn't and that is my complaint!
Kelly
20 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayMaybe you would like to write a letter to the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research at the University of Arizona, which is where the science of dendrochronology was formulated, and let them know that you have debunked their 80yr+ research so they can stop wasting their time.
I'm telling you tree rings as a dating method are weak for the reasons
already posted, again I can count the fur on a bear if it gives me the
same number as how many years I think the universe is old does that
mean bear fur is now a valid dating method simply because I can see
numbers I like, answer no! It has to be valid towards measuring time,
you want to use something that isn't and that is my complaint!
Kelly