11 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm not sure what assumptions of mine I have offered you that I
It's all about basal assumptions. Mine can be shown empirically to be true, yours cannot.
said I can prove, but feel free to quote me where I have made
statements like that. I am interested in your truth, please start
something you know we disagree about and prove it.
Kelly
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you are so rational, why not turn that rationality unto your religion?
I'm not sure what assumptions of mine I have offered you that I
said I can prove, but feel free to quote me where I have made
statements like that. I am interested in your truth, please start
something you know we disagree about and prove it.
Kelly
You make the assumption that what you read in the bible is correct - I do not. I can show evidence to support my conclusions - you cannot.
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf you want to take your 'rational' and apply it things you claim you
If you are so rational, why not turn that rationality unto your religion?
You make the assumption that what you read in the bible is correct - I do not. I can show evidence to support my conclusions - you cannot.
can prove, I'm waiting. I admit much of what I 'believe' is faith based,
but I'm not the one here saying they can prove something, that
person is you. Are going to get into that or are you going to just
make that claim and try and make me back up your assertions as
if I made them?
Kelly
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, what would you like me to back up?
If you want to take your 'rational' and apply it things you claim you
can prove, I'm waiting. I admit much of what I 'believe' is faith based,
but I'm not the one here saying they can prove something, that
person is you. Are going to get into that or are you going to just
make that claim and try and make me back up your assertions as
if I made them?
Kelly
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzBack up your claim that using a ruler on a string is the same as
Well, what would you like me to back up?
using radiometric reading for measuring time as being the same.
If you have something else in mind I'm open anything, because
it is after all your point to prove not mine.
Kelly
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayThe metre. Defined originally as 1/ 10 000 000 of the distance from the poles of the earth to the equator. Rulers, of course, measure some distance in metres or some fractions of a metre. Can we go out and measure the earth with a ruler to make sure that the distance on the scale is correct? To any sensible person we will realise that this is impossible. Empirical verification, against the definition, of an individual ruler is not possible. A ruler only makes sense compared with all other rulers, and a metre, practically, may as well be an arbitrary measure.
Back up your claim that using a ruler on a string is the same as
using radiometric reading for measuring time as being the same.
If you have something else in mind I'm open anything, because
it is after all your point to prove not mine.
Kelly
The units for measuring time, days and years, are not arbitrary. Can we empirically verify the number of days in a year? Yes, we can. We can count the number of days it takes to go from, for example, mid-winter to mid-winter. This has been done, and understood, for thousands of years. A year is not an arbitrary measure, and is empirically verifiable.
Okay. Now onto some radiodating stuff. I've posted multiple accounts of how and why radiodating works. The most normal criticism is "but how does one know the initial parent - daughter isotope ratio?" This is a valid question, but not an impossible one, and it can be experimentally validated. Firstly, the initial isotope - daughter ratio can be directly measured in a non-radioactive section of the same strata. This contains the same elements in the same isotope ratio's but simply in a lower concentration, thus, no decay occurs. Secondly, one can date by multiple methods, firstly to validate the first measurement, secondly to set up an isochron. This uses the decay of multiple elements, you can plot out the decay lines, and where they cross over, viola, that is the age of the rock. Radiomatric analysis gives dates to within 2%, comparable to 2mm leeway in a 10cm measurement.
If I have failed to communicate why radiometric dating is simply comparing one or multiple isotopic abundances with a pre-determined scale is different from a ruler, it is merely because I cannot see exactly what your problem is with it.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe lie that the holocaust didn't happen will out last most of us too,
Keep telling yourself that. Evolutionary theory will outlast both you and I.
that does not mean that the stories that it didn’t occur are true, only
that the lie will out last most of us. Making a claim about a belief that
something is true or not true lasts a long time is not a good measure
on if it is true or false.
Kelly
12 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzDoes an inch ever change, get smaller or longer? Rulers are not
The metre. Defined originally as 1/ 10 000 000 of the distance from the poles of the earth to the equator. Rulers, of course, measure some distance in metres or some fractions of a metre. Can we go out and measure the earth with a ruler to make sure that the distance on the scale is correct? To any sensible person we will realise that this is imposs ferent from a ruler, it is merely because I cannot see exactly what your problem is with it.
practical for measuring great distances, but a short string they are
quite accurate for such a task, and we can rest in the findings all we
to know is right in front of us, nothing is assumed. Finding a day
and a year I'm in an agreement is like finding an inch, it is small
enough for us to grasp. A year is not an arbitrary measurement,
and is empirically verifiable; however, the discussion was not
about years and rulers being easy to figure out, it was about
radiometric dating being the same as using a ruler.
Like the ruler a day is time marked, it is a strait forward translation
from looking at an inch next to a string, you see how far how much
of the string is an inch. Marking time is also a strait forward process
for the same reason a minute doesn’t get longer or shorter it is what
it is, it isn’t arbitrary we are not trusting anything that isn’t right
before us, and that isn’t true of decay rates even with your explanation
you know you must trust that you have all the bases covered and you
and I both know, none of us know what we don’t know. You must
know the initial parent -daughter isotope ratio to grasp the rate of
decay over time, which is not the same thing as taking a snap shot
of some rate and projecting the rate. You have rates found today, and
you assume that everything we need to know is here before us as
you measure the rate, and then translate the rate to time. Which
means even with your explanation it isn’t the same thing, unlike a
ruler or marking a day or year, you must make assumptions you have
all the necessary information required to use the rate of decay to
measure time past what we can monitor, then translate the rate into
time.
Kelly
12 Jul 06
I think there is no tangible proof of God. But I'm inclined to believe that there is LOGICAL proof of his existence. Life in itself is so unique, so special and beyond any explanation. Medical science has come a long, long way. But the most brilliant doctors still can't create life. I mean not unless by means of our reproductive system!
The way life, people reproduce; how the sperms can find their way to the egg; how the single cell can multiply and become specific and specialised organs etc, all these are just so unique that I don't believe that they can all happen by accident! It is just like believing in an explosion in a printing factory and all the letters of the alphabets suddenly fall into perfect order to form a dictionary. No, they must be a creator! It is this creator that I consider to be God almighty.
But this begs the question: which God is the true one? Muslim? Christian? Now THAT is a harder question to answer! But I'd take my chances with Christianity any time.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by ckoh19651. Life, the universe and everything is beyond any explanation.
I think there is no tangible proof of God. But I'm inclined to believe that there is LOGICAL proof of his existence. Life in itself is so unique, so special and beyond any explanation. Medical science has come a long, long way. But the most brilliant doctors still can't create life. I mean not unless by means of our reproductive system!
The way life, pe ...[text shortened]... Now THAT is a harder question to answer! But I'd take my chances with Christianity any time.
2. We want to be able to explain everything, so we can't accept that.
3. God is even more inexplicable than life, the universe and everything.
4. But that's no problem because he is inexplicable by definition.
5. Therefore, God exists.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by ckoh1965If life is beyond explanation, then God can't logically be the explanation for it, can He?
I think there is no tangible proof of God. But I'm inclined to believe that there is LOGICAL proof of his existence. Life in itself is so unique, so special and beyond any explanation. Medical science has come a long, long way. But the most brilliant doctors still can't create life. I mean not unless by means of our reproductive system!
The way life, pe ...[text shortened]... Now THAT is a harder question to answer! But I'd take my chances with Christianity any time.
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by NordlysBut the fact that He outdoes the universe in inexplicability at least makes him a good potential for explaining it.
1. Life, the universe and everything is beyond any explanation.
2. We want to be able to explain everything, so we can't accept that.
3. God is even more inexplicable than life, the universe and everything.
4. But that's no problem because he is inexplicable by definition.
5. Therefore, God exists.
I mean, I can't imagine something more easily explained could explain something less easily explained.
At least, not when you get into deep ontology.
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, in that case we cannot trust any historical measures. Perhaps, in the bible when they said that the mountains were covered by a certain depth of water they may have actually meant there was a puddle next to a hill.
Does an inch ever change, get smaller or longer? Rulers are not
practical for measuring great distances, but a short string they are
quite accurate for such a task, and we can rest in the findings all we
to know is right in front of us, nothing is assumed. Finding a day
and a year I'm in an agreement is like finding an inch, it is small
enough for us t ...[text shortened]... of decay to
measure time past what we can monitor, then translate the rate into
time.
Kelly
For decay rates to change physics would have to change. For physics to change the entire material of the universe would have to change. There is absolutely no evidence for that, and the cosmic background radiation works as evidence against your idea. You will need to back it up or shut it up in this case.
Your argument boils down to this. If I have a stick with uniformly spaced lines across its length, I cannot use it to measure a piece of string, then convert that to units of distance by working out the interval length between marks. Utter stupidity. Of course, I would point out that unless you have the ruler, all you have is a stick with marks on it anyway.
I covered the parent-daughter problem by the use of multiple techniques yielding the same age independantly, and the use of isochrons.
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzUnless you know the rate 1K ago, you cannot tell me it has, or
Well, in that case we cannot trust any historical measures. Perhaps, in the bible when they said that the mountains were covered by a certain depth of water they may have actually meant there was a puddle next to a hill.
For decay rates to change physics would have to change. For physics to change the entire material of the universe would have to c ...[text shortened]... by the use of multiple techniques yielding the same age independantly, and the use of isochrons.
hasn’t changed during that time period. It is as simple as that, you
are assuming the rate is the same, you can take a snap shot of it
now, compare it to rates that were taken as far back as we can go
when we started taking these types of readings. That is the window
of known good measurements. As far as looking at words like
fathom or an inch those too need to be examined closely, because
it does not mean that we are talking about the same thing even
though we are using the same words. Besides that, this wasn’t even
my complaint about the whole process, you seemed to miss that
point completely.
Kelly