they can dish it but...?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Must be you say so.
Kelly

Excellent response KJ..........

Really come on, you know very well this is not just 1 persons opinion. It is backed up by numerous sources of independent unbiased research with various methodologies. The problem is KJ your just too lazy to read the literature, instead you selectively read from sources inline with your out-dated ways of thinking.

To comply with your previous request I have abstained from quoting any specific source, so you can do your own reading.......... before you start just try to assess where the information is coming from, so you can be sure its not someone with a religious axe to grind (much like yourself).

Put your head back in the sand KJ and dream up your next conspiracy…… the earth’s not flat either so you may want to start there.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd say yes if all three agree it would be strong evidence pointing
to the validity of their recorded history. Which is as I pointed out
when it comes to rates you got several, but you do not have the
start stop times as you do in human recorded history, which is why
I trust them better than I do a snap shot of just a rate being
collected.
Kelly

Take a rock with a chemical composition that includes two radioactive elements. We know the start time is the time when the chemical compound was formed. If the elements had already decayed radioactively they would already be different element and would form a different compound!.
We also know the end time which is NOW. We measure how much of each of the two elements has decayed radioactively. Based on that and what we believe to be the rate of decay we calculate the date that we think the chemical compound was formed. If both radio active elements give exactly the same result then either the rate of radioactive decay does not vary over time or when it varies, it varies by exactly the same amount for both radio active elements. But our knowledge of physics suggests that when the rate of radioactive decay varies it would vary differently for different elements.

Now suppose we also look at ice cores/ tree rings/ and other dating methods that rely on other things altogether and we also get an agreement then would you not accept that this provides strong evidence that the various dating methods are accurate?

What if we look at stars and realize that the further away they are then the older they are. Yet we see the same properties and same types of stars at very different ages. Stars would be very different if radioactive decay (or fusion) occurred at a different rate as it is the fundamental process that drives them. So if there was even the tinyest variation we would notice that older stars (further away) would be different from nearer ones.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Take a rock with a chemical composition that includes two radioactive elements. We know the start time is the time when the chemical compound was formed. If the elements had already decayed radioactively they would already be different element and would form a different compound!.
We also know the end time which is NOW. We measure how much of each of the ...[text shortened]... t variation we would notice that older stars (further away) would be different from nearer ones.

Unfortunately credible evidence means nothing to KJ, he thinks scientific theories and principles are just huge conspiracies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Take a rock with a chemical composition that includes two radioactive elements. We know the start time is the time when the chemical compound was formed. If the elements had already decayed radioactively they would already be different element and would form a different compound!.
We also know the end time which is NOW. We measure how much of each of the ...[text shortened]... t variation we would notice that older stars (further away) would be different from nearer ones.

You seem to 'know' when things were formed, why do you need to
worry about anything? Nothing, is outside of your knowledge that
could cause you to be wrong apparently, again you have the answers
for you it isn't a belief, but a fact that when you look at these there is
no doubt, you know are right, enough said.

I don't have that with what I believe, I admit that, for me when
I think about the distant past it is a matter of faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You seem to 'know' when things were formed, why do you need to
worry about anything? Nothing, is outside of your knowledge that
could cause you to be wrong apparently, again you have the answers
for you it isn't a belief, but a fact that when you look at these there is
no doubt, you know are right, enough said.

I don't have that with what I believe, I admit that, for me when
I think about the distant past it is a matter of faith.
Kelly

And you claim others put words in your mouth. 🙄

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't have that with what I believe, I admit that, for me when
I think about the distant past it is a matter of faith.
Kelly

So, do you feel the same way about everything? You dont know that you are a person or you don't know that you are typing on a computer? When you think about it its just a matter of faith? Or do your arguments only apply to the 'distant past' and anything else that might possibly contradict your religious beliefs?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, do you feel the same way about everything? You dont know that you are a person or you don't know that you are typing on a computer? When you think about it its just a matter of faith? Or do your arguments only apply to the 'distant past' and anything else that might possibly contradict your religious beliefs?

No, but I acknowledge that the father away in time, or the more
variables I could miss or not have makes my ability or confidence
to make certainty claims about any given topic is greatly reduced.
You and others do not seem to have that problem, so your
conclusions are factual statements with regard to the distant past
to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And you claim others put words in your mouth. 🙄

Yes that is right, and I cannot help it if you do not take the time to
read the post I was responding to so you know why I said that either.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes that is right, and I cannot help it if you do not take the time to
read the post I was responding to so you know why I said that either.
Kelly

I did read it actually.

The only conclusion i can come to for why you said what you said was that you were trying to deflect the question.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, but I acknowledge that the father away in time, or the more
variables I could miss or not have makes my ability or confidence
to make certainty claims about any given topic is greatly reduced.

You 'acknowledge' it, but are unable to support it with any form of logical argument. There is no good reason to believe that the age of evidence has a direct impact on its validity. You repeatedly state in nearly every thread you enter that older data is less valid and therefore anyone using it is just basing their conclusions on 'faith', yet you have no logical argument to back up such a stance.
Do you admit that your stance is based on nothing more than your own personal and unfounded mistrust of old data?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You 'acknowledge' it, but are unable to support it with any form of logical argument. There is no good reason to believe that the age of evidence has a direct impact on its validity. You repeatedly state in nearly every thread you enter that older data is less valid and therefore anyone using it is just basing their conclusions on 'faith', yet you have no ...[text shortened]... r stance is based on nothing more than your own personal and unfounded mistrust of old data?

I say that the older things are we looking at, the more things are
that we could be unaware of which sets something apart where we
are aware of more of the variables in play. The chain of evidence
must be clean, I'm sure there is a word for what I'm trying to say,
but just as in a court proceedings when evidence is presented,
everyone wants to know that nothing has happened to it to make it
appear in any fashion other than how it was found. Now, I'm not
saying that I believe that evidence for evolution is faked, but without
being able to know what has happened to it from the time we are
claiming we are looking at, (our evidences beginning) we simply have
to many things to account for to claim we cannot be wrong.

I do not think my reasons for claiming the older something is the
more we don't know about it, we can be wrong about things that are
in the here and now and get them wrong too. Your desire to make a
case to prove your views on the origins also color your stance as mine
has personally affected mine.

I also say that getting the same answer does not always mean we
are getting what think is true too. Assumptions upon assumptions
should at least give you pause, it is nothing but a deck of cards where
a key piece of the universe currently missed could mean so much you
think you know and understand is in error. I have to admit that about
my beliefs, I have a faith and it does in deed color my way of thinking
as yours do yours too.
Kelly