|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations, step by step. | |||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: All experiences of man for years, and all the evidences can not be forged. You have to be kidding. You sound like you think denying the second world war and our own childhood, and diplomas, pasports, archives, ad infinitum is something we can do reasonably. Sorry. No.
quote:Only by assumption that the past was the same as now. That isn't science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: You name it, it agree. Tree rings? A faster growth rate then. Decay? There was none then. Light? It was not this light. You name it, there is nothing but assumptions it was the same. No science. Science is limited to observations of the state of being of matter, and fundamental forces in this temporary physical universe. No science says it was and always be like this. None.
quote: I don't know they were daily. Some might be closer to weekly or hourly. But it boils down to a different past. Light, matter, etc. If it was the same the growth was the same, if it was different the growth was different. Science cannot tell us this ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. What evidence do you have the state of the universe was the same? Zip. So cut the claims of science on that bit.
quote: Basically all you say here is science does not know and cannot tell us this. This is correct. Remember this before teaching it to kids as science. Science is in the dark, and will remain there, in the dark ages regarding the past and future. Don't impose the dark ages on kids as science. You cannot know. I know. But since it isn't science that tells me, that doesn'r concern you. All you have to remember is your admitted dark ignorance there!
quote: You have sans evidence for future and past as the present claims. Neither of us has science directly to cover our beliefs and assumptions about it. The fishbowl in question only has science inside it, you cannot claim it beyond the limits of the recent past and present.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Ned, you've been allowed to make up whatever utter nonsense you feel like and yet, still, with all that, you are unable to actually explain the patterns that have been pointed out to you. Like the past you only assume was as the present. Without being able to back up your beliefs, I am afraid they are utter nonsense.
quote:The changes were as follows. Get a pencil, and try to remember, rather than resorting to false accusations here. As we all know, you have a weak arguement, and your ONLY recourse is to abuse mod privliges and silence people like I. More importantly, ideas like mine. The big change was the seperation of the spiritual from the physical. Got it? That is what left things as we know them. quote: The old conclusion is not rational, it is a belief that rests only on assuming it was always the same. It doesn't look old to me at all. Not in the least. I find that as unreasonable as your starting assumptions of sameness. It just looks like it is decaying, in this temporary state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: You, as a tyranical mod are a power abusing liar, Ned. This is the only thing that you allow anyone to conclude. Many believers do not like you calling God a liar either. Just because you insist on looking at the present state of decay and physical onlyism as permanent, and falsely apply it to the past. I can handle your type anytime, in a sleep walk, your only hope of sounding like a debate winner is being the only voice left. Some are on to you Ned. Ha ha.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
This version too is outta here. You do not call another member a liar. You are once again banned.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
You seem to have missed the whole point entirely. Sure you can say trees grew faster in the past (even though there is no evidence of that so it is a blind assertion). But if they grew faster in the past they would stop correlating with other dating methods, that have nothing whatsoever to do with how fast a tree grows. Again, where is the blatantly necessary inconsistency?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Variations were a daily thing. Maybe also a weekly thing. If a tree grew in days, then the variations were on a micro scale. Unlike today. Tree rings correlate with fast growth as well, together with the yearly growth we had after the change. Tree rings are composed of cells that grow during the period that the ring is formed. Fast growth areas of rings have larger cells than slow growth areas, but slow growth areas still have some growth. Please explain the slow growth areas and what is depriving those cells from growing? At night?
Conclusion is too strong a word. assumption and belief is better. For your position yes, I agree. I've corrected that here. The word is consistent with usage of conclusions based on observation of evidence that validates a theory. It is not consistent with fantasy. So far there are plenty of valid conclusions that the time now is indistinguishable from that 4,400 years ago. And there just as many valid conclusions that the time 4,400 years ago is indistinguishable from that 4,500 years ago. The fact that you don't have a single valid conclusion doesn't mean that the other side of the argument doesn't.
No, it is not missing anywhere, we were left with things in this state, With no cause for "this state" to be different from {that state} and no way to organise "this state" from {that state} as if it were seamless and no reason to even consider {that state} ever existed.
The fact it now decays is evidence that it was left in a decaying state. You still fail to explain how the radioactive material got into the tree rings in exactly the right amounts for each ring to date properly by C-14 dating. evo conclusion -- the process we see today was what happened in the past. simple non-conclusion -- no something {undefined} "else" happened even thought there is absolutely no evidence for it.
No, the trees that grew looked a lot the same. The variations as they grew were proportionate to the time frame in which they grew. So it looked like a year, walked like a year and quacked like a year ... it behaved in a manner that is completely indistinguishable from a year in any way ... evo conclusion -- it was a year. simple non-conclusion -- I'll call it something else and pretend there is a difference.
Based on present observations. That is the point, who cares how many hypothesis people make based just on that unless they demonstrate the past had to be the same. Tell me how observations of evidence that is 4,400 years old differ from observations of evidence that is 4,500 years old? What you can do is look at trends in the behavior of things like cell growth\size in numerous species and find growth patterns that correlate with annual growth patterns, daily growth patterns, monthly (lunar) growth patterns and even fortnight (tidal) growth patterns. You can trace these same patterns back through time, correlating them with known historical events (the little ice age, volcanic eruptions, long term climate changes, etc). You can predict that if you go back another 100 years you will find data that matches the long term trends and that show the same fluctuations about that long term trend that we see from small scale changes in climate, etc. AND you can find that evidence. What you can do is look at trends in the behavior of things like cell growth\size in numerous species and find growth patterns that correlate with annual growth patterns, daily growth patterns, monthly (lunar) growth patterns and even fortnight (tidal) growth patterns. You can look at how those daily, monthly and fortnightly patterns differ from annual patterns. You can predict that if there was a change from annual growth to daily growth that you would see changes in growth patterns from those found in annual rings to those found in daily rings. AND ... you can NOT find that evidence -- you find you still have annual rings and daily rings with different growth patterns. It doesn't matter how long the day gets or how magic the sunlight gets, these are different growth patterns.
The light was different, and the growth rates were different. Photosynthesis as we know it did not exist. That is because that process involves our present light. The former light and process was different. We cannot base it on the present. How a coral now grows is not applicable. But it just happened to look exactly like a year, walk like a year and quack like a year ... it behaves in a manner that is completely and entirely indistinguishable from a year in any way ... evo conclusion -- it was a year. simple non-conclusion -- I'll call it something else and pretend there is a difference.
I don't know we need to change the rotation. What effect exactly of the tide and moon relates to the deep past? You really don't have a clue, do you?
On a side note, the atomic structure of an atom would be altered if we were to add an electron, or take one away, or change a charge here or there, or turn a neutron into something else. The whole orbit of the atom would be different. Altering the fundamental state of matter in the universe may have seen changes like this on a bigger scale, changing orbits as well. That's how big a change we are talking here. You really REALLY don't have an inkling of a clue, do you? Do you know what an ion is? Did you ever read any of the information on how C-14 is formed? Do you understand that this is actually going on today in the real world? Do you understand that it is also a fundamental part of radioactive decay?
Also that it fits a faster growth. If less carbon was in the tree in the past, because say of the light and growth rates, and matter state, etc. great, Different for each annual ring in every species but in just exactly the right amounts for each ring to date to exactly the same age for the ring to be an annual ring, while still observing evidence of daily, monthly and fortnightly rings within those annual rings for the species that develop them. While still observing the differences between the daily, fortnightly, monthly and yearly rings. So, once more, it just happened to look just exactly like a year, walk just exactly like a year and quack just exactly like a year ... it just happens to behave in a manner that is exactly and completely and entirely indistinguishable from a year in any way ... especially the year just before magic thursday ... evo conclusion -- it was a year. simple non-conclusion -- I'll call it something else and pretend there is a difference. And whenever challenged I'll redefine something else ... (just not thursday)
relative\simple, msg 110 writes: quote:Am not. You are. You've established you are a sillythursdayist, we're just quibbling about which thursday is involved. Let's narrow it down: was it before or after the first thursday in april 4,450 years ago?
... question your beliefs. I have. Now it's your turn. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5542 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Sorry for taking so long to answer your post. I've been very busy lately
simple writes: I accept reason, documentation, evidence, and there is no reasonable doubt that the second world war happened, or that I really had a mother. We have much good solid evidences, including things we can date, like videos, books, birth certificates, etc. I know you accept these things. But the point is that a lastthursdayist might just argue thatall these things happened before the big change that happened last thursday, and that all this evidence cannot be interpred with our current interpretations. For instance: "Sure you have a belly button, but we do not know what that means because we don't know what kind of phenomenon might create a belly button in the world before the big change that happened last thursday". The only difference between your point of view and that of a lastthursdayist's is that you put your big change a little further back (not a relevant difference) The problem with either point of view is not that they advocate that there was a big change. The problem lies in the fact that these views also advocate that the big change was seamless. How could such a huge world change be seamless? By doing that these point of views create a water tight boundary around them where oposig views cannot break into (Sure a safe place to be, but grown up people that need a security blancket does not make a prety sight). And that comes at the cost of bringing us to a logical bog from which no further progress can be made.
simple writes: We don't have any of this for before the flood. We have the bible saying a lot of things that mean it all had to be different to be true. Like water above the earth. It can't happen in the present laws of physics, we would cook. Trees can't grow in a week now. Man can't live forever, or a sun even. The flood waters can not be taken off the planet under current laws, barring some miracle. Ans on and on it goes. Same with the future, we can't have a gols city the size of the mmon land gently on earth, from space. Gravity would kick in. We can't have 12 different fruits on the same tree, a different one growing every soingle month of the year. Etc. You commit the glaring mistake of asumming that the genesis must be interpreted literally. I know other books where you can find animals that speek. The hare and the Tortoise, for instance. Books like these are great tools for teaching kids valueable life lessons, but are not to be read literally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4698 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
simple writes: Why is that not a reasonable conclusion seeing that we cannot be sure that the past physical universe is the same as the present? Couldn't God have changed the universe so it simply seems like those things happened when analyzed using the present physical universe's limitations?
All experiences of man for years, and all the evidences can not be forged. You have to be kidding. You sound like you think denying the second world war and our own childhood, and diplomas, pasports, archives, ad infinitum is something we can do reasonably. Sorry. No. Only by assumption that the past was the same as now. That isn't science. Please tell me what we can conclude about the past if we cannot assume that the physical laws of the universe worked the same as they do today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
http://EvC Forum: Suspensions and Bannings Part II -->EvC Forum: Suspensions and Bannings Part II
so not much point in replying to his posts {Added by Adminnemooseus - Also see message 125 of this topic.} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-11-2006 01:54 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024