So, Faith, are you telling us that those black rocks we call the Drakensberg basalts were not a result of volcanic action; just because no human witnessed them forming?
Do you define "stupid knee-jerk unthinking straw man post" as anything that doesn't agree with you? Cause if that's the case, then yea, good prediction!
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
I have to assume some sort of systematic error, that's all, that really isn't about time at all. If I ever figure it out I'll let you know.
Please do. Meanwhile please consider this post:
RAZD Message 403, systematic errors and tree rings.
And how would you test for such a systematic error, Faith?
Science tests for it with correlations to other systems, preferably ones that have known values ...
For instance tree rings ...
There are three Bristlecone pines, two living and one with a known date when it was cut down for the purpose of counting the tree rings.
Tree rings have varying thickness for different years due to the variations in climate, Thus we can compare these three trees to see if they have the same patterns year\ring after year\ring ... and they do.
Tree rings are observational evidence, the cores and sections are preserved so that others can count them and verify the results.
This confirms that the three trees precisely match each other, but we don't know (at this point) how accurate they are: could there be a systematic error that produces extra rings in each tree at the same time? Could there be a systematic error that produces no ring in each tree at the same time? How do we test those errors? There are several ways.
There is more, a lot more, should you wish to actually pursue this. If you want I can start a new thread on it.
Note that tree rings are used to calibrate 14C dating in order to remove systematic errors, so this is very much in line with what you are concerned with.
Now consider these terms and their meanings in this context:
At this point we can say that tree rings are precise (we get the same results from three different trees), but we aren't sure of the accuracy. The next step would be to test the accuracy against known dates, yes?
Since they've all been brainwashed into the Old Earth assumption they will of course agree, so that's how you get your consensus.
That must be why at the beginning of every science class I had, the instructor would swing a golden watch back and forth and say "The earth is old, the earth is old."
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
I got brainwashed by the rocks, themselves, into concluding that the earth is very, very old. Just by logging a core through the Springbok Flats Coalfield in my second year at uni.
Faith, like all those creationists writing on religious websites, where he gets his so-called information from, struggles to distinguish between the words 'assumption' and 'conclusion'. Just like he struggles to distinguish between a basalt and a coal seam.
Wish they could learn the difference. But, seeing that Faith mentioned IQ's of 80, I doubt it.
I've been puzzled all along why this distinction between interpretive and observational science isn't obvious to you all.
I would say the issue is that all science is basically observational, because the processes we see today inform us of how the natural world works. This is how we understand the natural laws, and this is how we can look at sediment forming today and note that it has the same structure as sedimentary layers in the rocks, so we know how long they take to form. Anything which circumvents such processes is acting in contravention of natural laws. You describe your process of understanding as starting with the bible and everything must fit into this paradigm (apologies for the over simplification), and you describe the alternative as old earth (OE) interpretations as if we start with the conclusion that the earth must be old and try to fit the evidence into this paradigm. But this is completely opposite to how science functions. There was nothing inevitable about the age of the earth, it has just been gradually pushed further and further back as new observations came to light.
... There was nothing inevitable about the age of the earth, it has just been gradually pushed further and further back as new observations came to light.
As further observations refined the approximation of the age as invalidated concepts were corrected or discarded.
Well, there's some solace in having my prediction so thoroughly confirmed.
Some prediction...
You posted the same old crap assertions about not being able to do science on old stuff and nobody bought it for about the eighteenth time. Then you act surprised.
That sequence of events is just about the definition of insanity.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
™ Version 4.2
