Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations, step by step.
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 130 (310291)
05-08-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Parasomnium
05-08-2006 4:07 AM


Re: I give up
quote:
It's funny - or it would be, if it weren't actually so sad - how you mention precisely some prime examples of things that can be very easily forged, and of which there are countless known instances of forgeries.
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:
Any normal person would then conclude that what the Bible says cannot be true ..
Only by assumption that the past was the same as now. That isn't science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Parasomnium, posted 05-08-2006 4:07 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by LinearAq, posted 05-10-2006 11:13 AM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 130 (310294)
05-08-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by mark24
05-07-2006 11:14 AM


quote:
A complete non-answer. I ask again: "Why do different lines of evidence agree? "
Secondly, how do all dating methods agree with a young earth age?
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:
So I ask again, "what evidence do you have that tree rings were daily rather than annual in the past?"
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:
No evidence of physical law constancy is not evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. Even if physical laws weren't constant, the earth may therefore actually be older than we think. Or younger, but only slightly. Nothing about law inconstancy suggests a 6,000 year old earth. If it is the Achilles heel of old earth "belief", then it is just as much an Achilles heel of young earth fantasy.
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:
Relative requires that a potentially possible phenomena (sans evidence) must be evidentially disproven before any conclusion can be reached for a given hypothesis. It therefore stands to reason that relative holds himself to exactly the same standard
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by mark24, posted 05-07-2006 11:14 AM mark24 has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 130 (310296)
05-08-2006 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by NosyNed
05-08-2006 10:32 AM


Re: Unlimited freedom and yet unsuccessful
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:
"It changed and the old way made it look like that". But when asked "Just what changes made it look this way, how did the various things change to make the pattern stay consistent across the change." you offere no explanation what so ever.
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:
It all boils down to: God did something that I have no clue about and the result is that the only rational conclusion one can come to after looking at what He did is that the earth is OLD.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2006 10:32 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 130 (310299)
05-08-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by NosyNed
05-08-2006 10:32 AM


Re: Unlimited freedom and yet unsuccessful
quote:
..He is a power abusing liar. This is the only thing that you allow anyone to conclude. I think that many Christians would not appreciate you calling their God a liar.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2006 10:32 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by AdminJar, posted 05-08-2006 1:21 PM simple has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 130 (310302)
05-08-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by simple
05-08-2006 1:15 PM


bye Simple
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:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 124 by simple, posted 05-08-2006 1:15 PM simple has not replied

      
    happy_atheist
    Member (Idle past 4913 days)
    Posts: 326
    Joined: 08-21-2004


    Message 126 of 130 (310339)
    05-08-2006 2:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 115 by simple
    05-08-2006 1:42 AM


    Re: Another Correlation problem.
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 115 by simple, posted 05-08-2006 1:42 AM simple has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 127 of 130 (310407)
    05-08-2006 7:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 112 by simple
    05-08-2006 1:32 AM


    Re: Great Debate?
    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:
    Oh, but you are a silly last thursdayist
      —(fallacycop)
    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.

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 112 by simple, posted 05-08-2006 1:32 AM simple has not replied

      
    fallacycop
    Member (Idle past 5520 days)
    Posts: 692
    From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
    Joined: 02-18-2006


    Message 128 of 130 (310434)
    05-09-2006 12:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 116 by simple
    05-08-2006 1:50 AM


    Re: Sillylastthursdayism
    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 that
    all 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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 116 by simple, posted 05-08-2006 1:50 AM simple has not replied

      
    LinearAq
    Member (Idle past 4675 days)
    Posts: 598
    From: Pocomoke City, MD
    Joined: 11-03-2004


    Message 129 of 130 (310724)
    05-10-2006 11:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 121 by simple
    05-08-2006 12:37 PM


    Resonable or not?
    simple writes:
    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.
    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?
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 121 by simple, posted 05-08-2006 12:37 PM simple has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 130 of 130 (310874)
    05-10-2006 7:54 PM


    simple banned again
    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

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024