Question for young earthers, hint: RJ

Originally posted by KellyJay
They can be done differently; however, are they good measures of the distant
past? Are they correct, are they off, are we really seeing all that needs to
be seen when we look into the distant past? Yes, they share the same issues,
because they have the same problem, we don't know if they are right or not
we only know that they give us results that if we ...[text shortened]... ll the data
required we may be good, if not we could be off and who knows by how
much?
Kelly

Why do you not apply the same 'issues' to written record? Why do you confidently accept written record and even accept it as corroboration of ice core data, but not accept say tree ring data? That is why I say you are the one with blinkers. You apply your criteria depending on whether you think it will affect your religion, not based on logic.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've never said we can not know anything by scientific methods, stop putting
words in my mouth, that is very dishonest of you.

It is not dishonest of me because it is what you are claiming, you just don't realise that it is a direct implication of what you say.

I'm only saying that if you want to call methods dating the distant past and you want to call those dates facts you so off base it isn't even funny.
As I said, you are the one with blinkers on. When it is the distant past, which contradicts your religious beliefs, suddenly there is a problem with scientific methodology. No explanation is given, you just claim it cant be done.

Originally posted by whodey
It was an interview on camera, unless they cut and spliced it to oblivion.

So, I'll ask you again, are you sure that is what he said?

Originally posted by whodey
Look, you have not read his work and have no idea what you are critizing. Essentially, his theory is that time was effected by such things as speed and mass, for which we all know is sound scientific thought. So think about it. Does time pass the same on earth as it does, say on another body that is traveling twice the speed? Nope. So how would time have ...[text shortened]... first billion years immediatly after the Big Bang? Would it be equal to the last billion? No.

Sure, I know that time is relative, do you? Do you realize that time being relative means that giving the universe an age is actually technically incorrect because its age is different depending on where you measure it?

Your new explanation makes no sense whatsoever. You say time may have passed faster in the past? Faster as relative to what?

But my criticism remains the same, according to your description, the guy essentially played around with figures until he got ones that looked nice. This is no different then if he played around with any of the words in the Bible until they looked nice.

Originally posted by whodey
Look, you have not read his work and have no idea what you are critizing. Essentially, his theory is that time was effected by such things as speed and mass, for which we all know is sound scientific thought. So think about it. Does time pass the same on earth as it does, say on another body that is traveling twice the speed? Nope. So how would time have ...[text shortened]... first billion years immediatly after the Big Bang? Would it be equal to the last billion? No.

Nope. So how would time have passed say the first billion years immediatly after the Big Bang? Would it be equal to the last billion? No.

Why not? The first billion years and the last billion are still just a billion years
nothing more or less. As long as time is measured as a constant, if what you
are saying is that speed stresses mass differently than okay. That does
not mean time is effected, and if you are simply talking about what ifs that
surround Big Bang, who cares people are just coming up with best guesses
anyway something new comes up all the time.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not dishonest of me because it is what you are claiming, you just don't realise that it is a direct implication of what you say.

[b]I'm only saying that if you want to call methods dating the distant past and you want to call those dates facts you so off base it isn't even funny.
As I said, you are the one with blinkers on. When it is the di ...[text shortened]... problem with scientific methodology. No explanation is given, you just claim it cant be done.[/b]

I don't bring up my religious beliefs you do!
I'm telling you that unless all the variables are accounted for you run the
risk of not taking something into account that needed to be. If you want to
say you KNOW you've gotten everything covered, okay you know!
I'm telling you that there is more than one way to skin a cat, meaning that
getting something to show up as old or having gone through one process,
can also be brought about other ways with different processes, now if you
want to tell me you know about the history of everything, okay I'm good with
that too, you KNOW!
If want to admit it is possible the dates could be wrong using the methods we
are discussiong, than we'd be in agreement. If you want to say it is not possible
because you KNOW, than we are not.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why do you not apply the same 'issues' to written record? Why do you confidently accept written record and even accept it as corroboration of ice core data, but not accept say tree ring data? That is why I say you are the one with blinkers. You apply your criteria depending on whether you think it will affect your religion, not based on logic.

No, it is possible records could be lied on, as it is possible dating tests can be
lied about too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't bring up my religious beliefs you do!

I don't have religious beliefs. However you did say:
I'd say your belief system has built in blinders.
You clearly think I have a belief system and have no problem bringing it up.
You clearly do have a belief system and it is clearly relevant because you only seem to have a problem with science in certain areas. Specifically when it contradicts your belief system.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If want to admit it is possible the dates could be wrong using the methods we
are discussiong, than we'd be in agreement. If you want to say it is not possible
because you KNOW, than we are not.
Kelly

I am saying that it is not possible that I could be wrong. There are too many different dating methods that are in agreement. It is not possible for them all to be wrong.
So, how about answering my question regarding written history. Why do you not seem to think that that too could be wrong? Why the exception to the rule? What is special about that method?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, it is possible records could be lied on, as it is possible dating tests can be
lied about too.
Kelly

But with regards to dating tests, we are not talking about lies, we are assuming that the data is accurate and the scientists in question are being honest. If you think there is some grand conspiracy between all scientists to prove an old earth then come out and say so. Until now you have been saying the data is correct it is only the interpretation that is being questioned, and you are saying scientists make errors in their interpretations not that they are lying.

So, do you think it is possible that world war I never actually took place and it is all just a grand conspiracy?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The article says, "Cl data suggest that the deepest 20 meters of the core
may be more than 500,000 years old."

Notice the words "suggest" and "may". So even they are not saying that
it is more than 500,000 years old, as you say. So again, it comes down
to interpretation. The two scientist I mentioned have a different way of
interpreting the data th ...[text shortened]... n; it could just as easily be a few thousand as the scientists
that agree with me state.

There was no flood. The human race was not reduced to eight people a few thousand years ago. The ice caps and glaciers on this planet are also not a few thousand years old. You are wrong, accept it and move on with your life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But with regards to dating tests, we are not talking about lies, we are assuming that the data is accurate and the scientists in question are being honest. If you think there is some grand conspiracy between all scientists to prove an old earth then come out and say so. Until now you have been saying the data is correct it is only the interpretation that ...[text shortened]... it is possible that world war I never actually took place and it is all just a grand conspiracy?

There is no need for a grand conspiracy in order to lie. It is done all the
time. It is part of human nature now. That is why we need a Savior.
It has been acknowledged in the past that evolutionary scientists have
lied and used fake fossil evidence in there hunt for the missing link that
they were looking for between humans and apes. Now they have just
lumped humans in with the Apes in another lie to try to solve that
problem. So we see there is no need for a grand conspiracy on one
hand but there can be one by illusionary means on the other. I do not
expect you to get this, however, since you are fooled into beliving such
nonsense and go right along with the grand lie thinking you are being
so truthful. 😏

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There was no flood. The human race was not reduced to eight people a few thousand years ago. The ice caps and glaciers on this planet are also not a few thousand years old. You are wrong, accept it and move on with your life.

Now you are always asking me for proof of my beliefs before you will
accept them. However, when it comes to yor beliefs you just want me
to accept them and move on. How nice for you. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Now you are always asking me for proof of my beliefs before you will
accept them. However, when it comes to yor beliefs you just want me
to accept them and move on. How nice for you. 😏

My views regarding ice core dating are corroborated by years of research by the scientific community, so are my views regarding a supposed global flood and so are my views regarding human population patterns.

If you want to know anymore about them i suggest you read a science book or two. I did, so can you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is no need for a grand conspiracy in order to lie.

There is if you want the lies to all be the same.

It is done all the time. It is part of human nature now.
Yes, everyone knows about your engine use.

Now they have just lumped humans in with the Apes in another lie to try to solve that
problem.
It seems you still don't know the difference between a name and a property. A name is just a name, it tells you nothing whatsoever about its object. It cannot be a lie. It is just a definition. In this case, we are talking about categorization, which is really just naming based on properties, again, it is impossible to lie when you name a category, you can only lie about properties. If you dispute the properties, say so, but you cannot correctly claim that humans being apes is a lie when the definition of what is or is not an ape is entirely up to the person doing the categorization.