Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
candle2
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 16 of 278 (893527)
04-15-2022 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AZPaul3
04-14-2022 12:01 PM


Re: No Light-Time Problem
AZPaul3, l know that a supremely intelligent
Being created me.
You believe that your distant family members
consists of chimps; apes; and, orangutans.
You accept that your earliest ancestors were
amoeba.
Trust me! If you think that this speaks well of
you, then you are the delusional one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AZPaul3, posted 04-14-2022 12:01 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-15-2022 7:38 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 20 by AZPaul3, posted 04-15-2022 7:52 PM candle2 has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 278 (893528)
04-15-2022 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by candle2
04-15-2022 6:52 PM


Re: No Light-Time Problem
No one would trust you, you think a supremely intelligent being created you. That is delusional.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by candle2, posted 04-15-2022 6:52 PM candle2 has not replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 18 of 278 (893529)
04-15-2022 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
04-14-2022 1:18 PM


Paulk, let's see if you are capable of understanding
Genesis 1;2. It is so simple that a seven year old,
near the end of the second grade, should have no
difficulty with it.
Here it is:
"And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep..."
The verb "was" is from hayah (#1961 Strong's
Concordance). Hayah means to be, or become
to pass.
The word "form" is from Tohuw (#8414 Strong's).
Tohow means to lie waste or desolate.
"Void" is from Bohuw (#922). Bohuw translates
to "an undistinguishable ruin."
By no stretch of the imagination do these words
describe an originally creation.
Job 38:1-7 states that the angels shouted for joy
after the original creation of the earth.
What sane person believes that the angels shouted
for joy over a desolate and ruined earth.
Isaiah 45:18 "...God Himself that formed the earth
and made it; He has established it, He created it
not in vain (#8414 Tohuw-desolate wasteland).
He formed it to be inhabited.
Psalms 104:30 "Thou Sendest forth thy spirit
(Gen. 1:2 "And the Spirit of God moved upon the
face of the waters), they are created: and thou
renewed the face of the earth.
How is it even possible to have an evening and
morning, light and dark, on the very first day if
the sun is not already in the sky?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2022 1:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-15-2022 7:50 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2022 1:52 AM candle2 has not replied
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 04-16-2022 3:30 AM candle2 has replied
 Message 24 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-16-2022 11:41 AM candle2 has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 278 (893530)
04-15-2022 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by candle2
04-15-2022 7:46 PM


Fiction.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by candle2, posted 04-15-2022 7:46 PM candle2 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 20 of 278 (893531)
04-15-2022 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by candle2
04-15-2022 6:52 PM


Re: No Light-Time Problem
The problem you have with these statements, candle2, is that I have evidence. Entire libraries full. Museums, universities and scholarly works beyond reproach. Real science stuff. Lots of it.
While you, on the other hand, have nothing but the fantasies of 4000 year old goat herders. And your different cults have different fantasies. And they go to war with each other over who's got the bigger dick. And, apparently, you all have a deep need to make life as difficult for as many humans as possible.
Yes, candle2, you are natural chemistry in constant motion over trillions of energy gradients. You are the evolved progeny of warm goo that oozed around a sea vent. You are the unintended random outcome of blind chemistry gone ... natural. You are an animal of the hominid family that includes monkeys. You're a monkey, candle2.
You can deny it all you want but that won't change the absolute empirical fact that you are a monkey.
Edited by AZPaul3, : What?

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by candle2, posted 04-15-2022 6:52 PM candle2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 04-15-2022 8:04 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 21 of 278 (893532)
04-15-2022 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by AZPaul3
04-15-2022 7:52 PM


On Genesi 1
The problem is that folk like candle are totally and willfully ignorant about what the Bible co0nsists of or was written to explain. He seems to thing that Genesis 1 is actually about creation when the reality is that it was a far more recent human creation than Genesis 2&3 and that it's purpose was to justify and market the concept of a six day week and a Sabbath. Everything else including the God character in the Genesis 1 fable is simply a plot device designed to help maintain a 'Hebrew' identity separate from the other accepted and far more attractive religions during the Babylonian exile.
Candle is simply a pitiful example of the Christian Cult of Willful Ignorance and Deceit.
It's sad that so much of modern Christianity is simply the product of lies and willful ignorance.

My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AZPaul3, posted 04-15-2022 7:52 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 22 of 278 (893533)
04-16-2022 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by candle2
04-15-2022 7:46 PM


quote:
Paulk, let's see if you are capable of understanding
Genesis 1;2.
Oh, I am, and I do Too bad you don’t understand it.
quote:
It is so simple that a seven year old,
near the end of the second grade, should have no
difficulty with it.
You’re already wrong. It needs to be read in the context of the cultures of the time it was written.
quote:
Here it is:
"And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep..."
The verb "was" is from hayah (#1961 Strong's
Concordance). Hayah means to be, or become
to pass.
Or in short “was” is a perfectly adequate translation - at least so far as you go (which is not far enough - you cannot do a correct translation by looking up words in a Concordance and picking the meaning you like without regard for context or grammar).
quote:
The word "form" is from Tohuw (#8414 Strong's).
Tohow means to lie waste or desolate.
"Void" is from Bohuw (#922). Bohuw translates
to "an undistinguishable ruin."
By no stretch of the imagination do these words
describe an originally creation.
Of course not. They describe the state BEFORE creation, the chaotic waste of the Primordial Ocean (“the deep”). Of course if you stick with the understanding of a seven year old you’ll probably miss that. Good job there’s an adult here to point out these things. You really do need to understand the cultural context.
quote:
How is it even possible to have an evening and
morning, light and dark, on the very first day if
the sun is not already in the sky?
Since the Sun is not made or set in the sky until the fourth day (verses 14-19) you should be asking that of the author of Genesis. We’re discussing what it says, not whether what it says makes sense to you.
Edited by PaulK, : Removed stray word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by candle2, posted 04-15-2022 7:46 PM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 23 of 278 (893534)
04-16-2022 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by candle2
04-15-2022 7:46 PM


candle-less, instead of blathering this nonsense, why don't you instead respond to the still unresolved issue of your lying about radiocarbon dating?
From my having to repeat it yet again in Message 13, here it is yet again!
DWise1 writes:
Message 669
DWise1 writes:
This is why I stated that after 100,000
years (probably closer to 50,000) no C-14
is detectable in fossils. The soil has nothing
to do with this.
It is ludicrous to believe that significant
amounts of C-14 is still present in 75,000,000
year old fossils, regardless of the soil or the
presence of iron in the soil.
SO WHATEVER DOES C-14 IN FOSSILS HAVE TO DO WITH RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS????? Stop evading the question!
Any C-14 incorporated into the organisms through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on would indeed all be gone after 50,000 years. In addition, in most fossils all the organic material has been replaced by minerals (including any C-14 that had been incorporated in that organic material through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on). You are familiar with what fossilization is, aren't you?
Rather, the C-14 to be found in those fossils (as well as in all kinds of non-fossils) has not decayed away yet because it is of recent origin. And that recently formed C-14 has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.
 
Now, answer my question/request! What possible significance can teh presence of that recently formed C-14 have on radiocarbon dating?
In order to answer that, you need to understand what radiocarbon dating is based on and what it depends on. You claim to know that, so demonstrate your knowledge!
If you have no clue, then simply admit it and allow yourself to learn something for a change.
Otherwise, you are lying not only to us, but also to yourself. Do you really believe that lying is the Christian thing to do?
Have you since learned how radiocarbon dating does actually work, or are you still making your false claims based solely on willfully ignorance?
And as I was writing that Message 13, you posted this in your Message 12:
candle-less writes:
Also, C-14 has a half-life of roughly 5700 years.
And, being generous to a fault, there should be no
detectable C-14 in a fossils after 100,000 years.
(actually 50,000 years, but remember, I am being
generous to a fault).
Science allows for only one possibility.
It is misguided scientists who grasp at straws
in order to preserve their paradigm.
It is not creationists vs. Science.
It is scientists vs. science.
Dino fossils contain significant amounts of C-14.
So you are indeed still making your false claims based solely on willfully ignorance. And since we have already pointed out to you the reason why that claim "invalidating radiocarbon dating" is absolutely false, that means that you already know better and that you are therefore deliberately lying!
Why do you (and virtually all other creationists) constantly lie? I used to be a Christian and I remember Christian doctrine on lying; ie, "Don't lie! It's a sin!". So why is it that now with creationists and other "true Christians" lying through your teeth is an article of faith? What went wrong with you people?
And why are you so terrified of the simple truth that you must always run away from a very simple question: "SO WHATEVER DOES C-14 IN FOSSILS HAVE TO DO WITH RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS?????"
And why do you keep lying about knowing all about radiocarbon dating when you keep demonstrating with complete clarity that you do not possess such knowledge? Your constant lying is very tiresome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by candle2, posted 04-15-2022 7:46 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 2:35 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 278 (893542)
04-16-2022 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by candle2
04-15-2022 7:46 PM


This is a science forum, not a religious bullshit forum.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by candle2, posted 04-15-2022 7:46 PM candle2 has not replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 25 of 278 (893551)
04-16-2022 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
04-14-2022 2:40 PM


Jar, you accuse me of being ignorant and dishonest.
However, evolutionary scientists are among the most
dishonest professionals of all disciplines.
Among their numerous fakes and forgeries are:
Piltdown man;
Archaeoraptor;
Hackel's embryo illustrations, which was offered as
scientific evidence.
Nebraska man, which turned out to be a pig.
Peppered Moths. Both dark and light specimens
have always existed simultaneously. Neither
rest on tree trunks during daylight, and they only
fly at night.
Etc......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 04-14-2022 2:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-16-2022 1:27 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2022 1:34 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 04-16-2022 1:58 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 29 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2022 1:59 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 33 by jar, posted 04-16-2022 2:48 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 56 by dwise1, posted 04-17-2022 10:57 PM candle2 has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 26 of 278 (893553)
04-16-2022 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by candle2
04-16-2022 1:08 PM


Among their numerous fakes and forgeries are:
Piltdown man;
Archaeoraptor;
Hackel's embryo illustrations, which was offered as
scientific evidence.
Nebraska man, which turned out to be a pig.
Peppered Moths. Both dark and light specimens
have always existed simultaneously. Neither
rest on tree trunks during daylight, and they only
fly at night.
Etc......
That's a pretty short list, of course the Peppered Moth was never a hoax and you have misstated the science about them. Nebraska Man is a favorite creationist hoax, included on the list because they can find so few scientific frauds, compared to creationist frauds.
The others were all exposed and corrected by, yep you missed it, evolutionary biologists.
That you trot out this pathetic list displays your ignorance and dishonesty as Jar noted earlier.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 1:08 PM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 27 of 278 (893554)
04-16-2022 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by candle2
04-16-2022 1:08 PM


Creationists are more dishonest
quote:
Jar, you accuse me of being ignorant and dishonest.
However, evolutionary scientists are among the most
dishonest professionals of all disciplines.
Well, let’s see.
quote:
Piltdown man;
It’s a fake and likely created by an evolutionary scientist - but we don’t know.
quote:
Archaeoraptor;
Not created by evolutionary scientists,
quote:
Hackel's embryo illustrations, which was offered as
scientific evidence.
But evidence for Haeckel’s own ideas, which Darwin did not agree with.
quote:
Nebraska man, which turned out to be a pig.
Neither a fake nor a fraud.
quote:
Peppered Moths. Both dark and light specimens
have always existed simultaneously. Neither
rest on tree trunks during daylight, and they only
fly at night.
The spread of the dark form - and the reversal of that spread is fact. They do sometimes rest on tree trunks - and it was never claimed that was their preferred resting place anyway. That they usually rest on branches higher up the tree doesn’t affect the science in the least. And I have no idea what “they only fly at night” is meant to refer to.
So, at best two genuine examples and three substantial falsehoods. And I doubt that there is any major scientific field with only two fakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 1:08 PM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 28 of 278 (893555)
04-16-2022 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by candle2
04-16-2022 1:08 PM


Typical creationist BS claims which lie about those cases. Why don't you describe them in more detail? Oh, right, you cannot. Since yet again you are only regurgitating creationist BS lies that you know nothing about.
Up front, have you ever noticed that in none of those cases did any creationist ever uncover and expose a problem. Rather, it has always been scientists who have done so.
  1. Piltdown man: Somebody as yet not identified had perpetrated that hoax. Since it did seem to indicate what British scientists wanted to see (that Man originated in England), plus scientists never expect nature to commit a hoax, it was accepted by many. Though not all scientists accepted it and when finally they could get access to the original "fossils" to run dating tests on them (which the "fossils" failed) that the hoax was exposed. And as a result of that hoax' exposure, Piltdown Man was dropped immediately.
    Somebody who was not a scientist had committed a hoax, so your accusation that it was scientists who had committed it is a lie. Also, when a scientific claim is found to be false, we correct that mistake and stop using it. But when a creationist claim is found to be false, creationist just keep using it. Notice a pattern there?
  2. Archaeoraptor: China is rich in fossil finds and Chinese farmers have learned to profit from that new industry. They know what paleontologists are looking for, so they seek to enrich themselves by satisfying the demands of the market place. In this case, a farmer took two separate fossils the stuck them together.
    Yet again, it was a farmer who created that fake, not scientists. And it was scientists who exposed it, yet again.
  3. Hackel's embryo illustrations, which was offered as scientific evidence. Actually, the name is Häckel, also written as Haeckel (Was ist denn mit Dir los? Weißt Du wirklich nichts?) His illustrations were indeed hand-drawn, an extremely common practice in biological science back then (c. 1860's) (crack open your copy of Gray's Anatomy some time). Part of the "controversy" stems from his resizing a collection of drawings to make them all the same size, plus he had his own ideas about "recapitulation" which very likely influenced his eye and hand. Now we use photography to compile images of embryos and which confirm the overall development of embryos observed by Häckel. So what's your beef?
  4. Nebraska man, which turned out to be a pig. The tooth was not typical, but rather had rotated in its socket producing uneven and atypical wear which was similar to the wear on an anthropoidal ape tooth, hence its misidentification. And, yet again being a product of the time, American anthropologists wanted to claim America as the birthplace of humanity. However, very few scientists accepted that misinterpretation of the find, were very critical of it, and a few years later the tooth's discoverer himself unearth evidence of its true nature and was the one to retract his own original claim.
    So yet again, no fake nor forgery, but rather a misidentification which was corrected immediately and dropped by science. But the creationist lies about it persist long after they have been exposed repeatedly.
  5. "Peppered Moths. Both dark and light specimens have always existed simultaneously. Neither rest on tree trunks during daylight, and they only fly at night."
    Even more creationist silliness based on creationists being unable to understand science. Though we are rewarded with the creationist cry of "But they're STILL MOTHS!!!!", their self-proclamation of their abject ignorance and stupidity.
Yet more evidence of creationists being the most dishonest group in existence.
So then, candle-less, you just confirmed that you are indeed ignorant and dishonest. Now what about your gross dishonesty in your false C-14 claims and your false "kinds" claims?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 1:08 PM candle2 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 29 of 278 (893556)
04-16-2022 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by candle2
04-16-2022 1:08 PM


candle2 writes:
Among their numerous fakes and forgeries are:
Piltdown man;
Archaeoraptor;
Hackel's embryo illustrations, which was offered as
scientific evidence.
Nebraska man, which turned out to be a pig.
Peppered Moths. Both dark and light specimens
have always existed simultaneously. Neither
rest on tree trunks during daylight, and they only
fly at night.
Wow, 5 frauds in 200 years. (At least 2 of which are not frauds). Evolutionary biologists must be the most honest profession in the world.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 1:08 PM candle2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-16-2022 2:36 PM Tangle has replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 30 of 278 (893559)
04-16-2022 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by dwise1
04-16-2022 3:30 AM


Look dwise don't insult my intelligence
with radiocarbon dating crap. It is extremely
unreliable.
General speaking, the results are manipulated
to obtain the expected age. Deny all you
want, but we both know this is true.
In some instances the head and the tail of the
same fossils have been dated as much as
20,000 years between.
Also, fossils are dated by the strata that they
are found in, and the strata is dated by the
fossils they contain.
There is absolutely nothing that supports
evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 04-16-2022 3:30 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-16-2022 3:01 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 36 by dwise1, posted 04-16-2022 4:01 PM candle2 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