Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 211 of 297 (136004)
08-21-2004 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Hangdawg13
07-27-2004 2:32 AM


HangDawg - no response ... ?
Hangdawg13 writes:
Thanks for the bump, but I'm getting very weary of debating all of this.
I notice two other posts that confirm my first reply to this post -- the dating of inclusions and the relevance of Plaisted's geochronological information.
I assume from your lack of response that you have none, and cannot refute the solid evidence in this topic for an old earth.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:32 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by NosyNed, posted 08-21-2004 8:20 PM RAZD has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 212 of 297 (136005)
08-21-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by RAZD
08-21-2004 7:57 PM


Re: HangDawg - no response ... ?
RAZD, I think HD made it clear he doesn't have an arguement for this. That is much more honest than many people here. I think he needs quite a bit of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2004 7:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2004 10:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 213 of 297 (136026)
08-21-2004 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by NosyNed
08-21-2004 8:20 PM


Re: HangDawg - no response ... ?
Yeah, I should have made that "cannot at this time refute the solid evidence ..."

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NosyNed, posted 08-21-2004 8:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 214 of 297 (146889)
10-02-2004 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-21-2004 11:14 AM


Re: (changed Lake Suigetsu link)
bump for Willowtree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 11:14 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 215 of 297 (146967)
10-03-2004 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-21-2004 11:14 AM


BUMP FOR WILLOWTREE
please read the first post on this forum about all the correlations and methods of verifying the ages measured.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 11:14 AM RAZD has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 216 of 297 (147338)
10-04-2004 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-21-2004 11:14 AM


Absolute Minimum age of the earth = 567,700 years based on solid data.
Rational people can go further and see that the probable age is much older than that. There is data available for instance that is cross referenced between radiometric dating, biological layering and astrophysics that shows that life on this planet is at least 400 million years old.
Inferred Minimum age of the earth = 400,000,000 years based on cross-referenced data.
Certainly scientists (and people who do not have problems with the results of science) agree that the accumulation of evidence available shows that life on earth is at least 3.5 billion years old and that the earth itself is at least 4.55 billion years old.
Minimum scientific age of the earth = 4,550,000,000 years
You entire blue box is irrational.
Your terminolgy is hysterical:
From, "absolute minimum" to "inferred minimum" to "minimum scientific"....what scientific process determined 4.6 billion ?
That is rhetorical, there is no scientific basis for 4.6 billion, it is the subjective number created by evos - a number needed to accomodate uniformitarianism theory.
Your own choice of words matched against the fact that all evolutionary mega dates were originally determined by the subjective needs of the ToE exposes the voodoo in your "science".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2004 11:14 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 11:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 218 by wj, posted 10-04-2004 11:24 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 217 of 297 (147340)
10-04-2004 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object
10-04-2004 11:01 PM


That is rhetorical, there is no scientific basis for 4.6 billion, it is the subjective number created by evos - a number needed to accomodate uniformitarianism theory.
Based on what rationale? If the number is arbitrary, then why did several independant examinations all return the same date?
Why pick 4.6 billion if any big number will do? What do you propose is so significant about this number that leads us to always come back to it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-04-2004 11:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-05-2004 10:30 PM crashfrog has replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 297 (147347)
10-04-2004 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object
10-04-2004 11:01 PM


Only rhetoric?
WT, anything to support your silly assertions or are you relying only on empty rhetoric?
Surprisingly, RAZD is able to string together words such as "absolute minimum", "inferred minimum" and "scientific minimum" with comprehensible meaning rather than the terms which your hero Scott made up.
As usual, WT has conflated cause and effect. The inconsistency of biblical literalism with scientifically testable and observable data caused people to abandon biblical literalism as an accurate description of the past, not people looking for a reason to disbelieve the bible looking for a rationale. Atheism and alternative religions to bible worshipping have existed for far longer than bible worship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-04-2004 11:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 219 of 297 (147675)
10-05-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by crashfrog
10-04-2004 11:07 PM


Based on what rationale? If the number is arbitrary, then why did several independant examinations all return the same date?
Those allegedly "independant examinations" are not independant because they all stay tethered to what is already generally accepted.
Discard dates and why they are as such fuels this skepticism.
Is this not circular ?
4.6 billion is a number which started much lower but increased gradually to fit what evolution needed - billions of years.
You have heard the criticism - rocks dating fossils - fossils dating rocks - round and round.
You evos have a theory which NEEDS billions of years.
Okay.
Nobody ever produces a date for any material which contradicts the already known parameters.
Please show me ONE independant date determined externally by which the "rationality" of a biased scientist had no part in producing ?
Once again, this criticism lingers and is valid until an external benchmark is proven.
Most disturbing is when the age of material is already known and the dating technique fails.
Why pick 4.6 billion if any big number will do? What do you propose is so significant about this number that leads us to always come back to it?
As you know this number was settled on over a period of time. It is so large that evolution finally feels safe that it can account for the time needed for anything to have evolved.
Crashfrog:
I see from your posts that you have participated seriously and genuinely. This approach alone, to me, evidences confidence/honesty/truth.
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 11:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Percy, posted 10-05-2004 10:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2004 12:44 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 223 by NosyNed, posted 10-06-2004 1:46 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2004 10:46 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 229 by jar, posted 10-07-2004 2:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 220 of 297 (147676)
10-05-2004 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object
10-05-2004 10:30 PM


WillowTree writes:
Please show me ONE independant date determined externally by which the "rationality" of a biased scientist had no part in producing ?
Here are a bunch of dates billions of years derived through radiometric dating of rocks in Greenland and from the moon. They're JPEGs, so I include them in this message:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-05-2004 10:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Coragyps, posted 10-05-2004 11:07 PM Percy has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 221 of 297 (147679)
10-05-2004 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Percy
10-05-2004 10:44 PM


And WT, please note that all those hundreds of rocks in Percy's table ( well, Dalrymple's table ) do not result from the evil biases of all those evil scientists that had their God-Sense removed by studying geology. All those dates result from measuring amounts of certain isotopes in rocks and then plugging the amounts into equations. Measurement. Calculation. Reporting of answer. The End.
They didn't go wagging off to West Greenland and the Moon collecting rocks just to confound you fundies. Really, that likely never occurred to any of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Percy, posted 10-05-2004 10:44 PM Percy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 222 of 297 (147691)
10-06-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object
10-05-2004 10:30 PM


Is this not circular ?
I don't find it so. Discarding measurements because of serious inconsistency with the majority of measurements is how measuring is done. If the dating was bogus, the dates would be all over the map.
What we find instead is that the vast, vast majority of dating results converge on the same date, but there's the occasional really outlandish result. That's not the pattern we would expect if dating was fundamentally flawed. If that was true, we would expect dates to be random, not convergent.
You evos have a theory which NEEDS billions of years.
If anything, we need a few billion more. It's staggering the level of change we have to cram into only 4.6 billion years. But do we expand our dates as a result? No, because the dates aren't driven by evolutionary need; they're driven by geologic data. We'll stick with what the rocks say, which is 4.6 billion years. As much as we could use a few billion more, that's not how it works.
Nobody ever produces a date for any material which contradicts the already known parameters.
What? Sure they do.
But those dates are few and far between, and are always due to procedural error.
As you know this number was settled on over a period of time.
That doesn't answer my question. Why this number, and not another?
Who settled? Who decided? Show me the memo.
It is so large that evolution finally feels safe that it can account for the time needed for anything to have evolved.
No, like I said, we could use a few more billion years, just to be safe. There's an awful lot of biological change to cram into only 4.6 billion years. It's almost not enough.
Please show me ONE independant date determined externally by which the "rationality" of a biased scientist had no part in producing ?
I don't understand what you mean. Are you asking for results from a laboratory where no scientist was involved with the work? You think the lab can just operate by itself, or something?
I see from your posts that you have participated seriously and genuinely.
I'm pleased you think so; I truly wish I could say the same for you. But you don't evidence honesty and truth in your posts. You evidence semantic games, out-of-context quote mining, and ad-hoc dismissals of your opponents because they lack some fictional "godsense."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-05-2004 10:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-06-2004 7:07 PM crashfrog has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 223 of 297 (147700)
10-06-2004 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object
10-05-2004 10:30 PM


And you have heard too WT
You have heard the criticism - rocks dating fossils - fossils dating rocks - round and round.
And this is and example of the kind of deliberately misleading (read LIE) that your sources feed you and you swallow hook line and sinker.
In addition, that issue has been dealt with here a number of times. If you've somehow missed it then it begins to smack of willful ignorance.
Meanwhile you have NOT touched on the topic of this thread. The correlations. And neither have any of those false sources that your folks have on the web.
As for all the rest of you assertions. Back them up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-05-2004 10:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 224 of 297 (147902)
10-06-2004 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by crashfrog
10-06-2004 12:44 AM


WT:Message 219 I see from your posts that you have participated seriously and genuinely. This approach alone, to me, evidences confidence/honesty/truth.
responding Crashfrog writes:
I'm pleased you think so; I truly wish I could say the same for you. But you don't evidence honesty and truth in your posts. You evidence semantic games, out-of-context quote mining, and ad-hoc dismissals of your opponents because they lack some fictional "godsense."
Your response to my compliment instantly proves me wrong.
In reality, your calm and "genuine" involvement is exposed to be phony and contrived all along. Your words reveal a seething and implacable anger. All because you are incapable of adequately refuting the stinging criticism that convergence dating can be synonymously and accurately described as circular.
Persons who have had their God-sense removed all agree that it doesn't exist. This is a foundational symptom of its effects.
I only counter with this truth of God-sense removal when opponents depart from the debate and initiate/declare that unless I agree with their view I am irrational, which is of course a nice way of saying you are crazy/insane.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2004 12:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Admin, posted 10-06-2004 7:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 10-07-2004 1:03 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2004 10:54 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 225 of 297 (147904)
10-06-2004 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Cold Foreign Object
10-06-2004 7:07 PM


Hi WillowTree,
I know Crash was uncomplementary, but only briefly, and most of his post addressed relevant points. Your post is nothing but an extended insult. Nobody's perfect, so that's okay now and then. The general idea here is obey most of the rules most of the time and you'll do fine. Make too great a habit of breaking the rules and you get the attention of the moderators.
Please don't become our first [forum=-15] denizen.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-06-2004 7:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024