Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,227 Year: 3,484/9,624 Month: 355/974 Week: 244/130 Day: 38/43 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8519
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


(1)
Message 31 of 278 (893560)
04-16-2022 2:36 PM


"the most dishonest professionals of all disciplines" are the priests and believers in the following:
Bahá’í
Buddhism
Christianity
Confucianism
Druze
Gnosticism
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Rastafarianism
Shinto
Sikhism
Zoroastrianism
and the 10s of thousands of blood cults that spring from each.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4401
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 32 of 278 (893561)
04-16-2022 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tangle
04-16-2022 1:59 PM


Tangle writes:
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.
Hey don't forget there was an Etc...... too!
Candy2 writes:
Etc......

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 29 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2022 1:59 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2022 2:54 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 409 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 278 (893564)
04-16-2022 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by candle2
04-16-2022 1:08 PM


Yes, you are willfully ignorant and willfully dishonest about just about everything including reality and Christianity.
What anyone else does has no bearing on the fact that a vast majority of modern Christianity including almost all US based Evangelical Christianity is simply willful igno0rance and Deceit.
The fact is your list was and is simply another example of the deceit called Creationism.
You understanding of Genesis 1 is simply another example of the deceit that is the defining characteristic of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Deceit.
You current are simply pitiful but there is still hope that you might first learn the techniques and process of thinking.
As a Christian I hold out hope for you but honestly it is a faint hope.

My Website: My Website

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

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9501
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 34 of 278 (893565)
04-16-2022 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tanypteryx
04-16-2022 2:36 PM


Tany writes:
Hey don't forget there was an Etc...... too!
ah shit, there's another one?

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 32 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-16-2022 2:36 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4401
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 35 of 278 (893566)
04-16-2022 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by candle2
04-16-2022 2:35 PM


candy2 writes:
Look dwise don't insult my intelligence
We already know nothing could insult your intelligence.
candy2 writes:
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.
Well that would be silly, then we would give actual frauds for creationists to point to instead of completely known and documented lies from creationists.
candy2 writes:
In some instances the head and the tail of the
same fossils have been dated as much as
20,000 years between.
I bet you cannot ever document a single instance of this result, let alone multiple instances.
candy2 writes:
Also, fossils are dated by the strata that they
are found in, and the strata is dated by the
fossils they contain.
Wow, it has been noticed that certain fossils are found in certain strata and not in others. What a scandal!
candy2 writes:
There is absolutely nothing that supports
evolution.
Absolutely nothing you have written supports your position.

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 30 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 2:35 PM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5941
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


(2)
Message 36 of 278 (893570)
04-16-2022 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by candle2
04-16-2022 2:35 PM


candle-less, please learn something about science. Your abject ignorance is almost as painful to watch as is your lies to support it.
Look dwise don't insult my intelligence
with radiocarbon dating crap. It is extremely
unreliable.
If you don't want your intelligence insulted, then stop saying such utterly stupid things!
How would you know since you have demonstrated conclusively that you have no clue what you are talking about.
You claim that trace C-14 found in dino fossils (mike the wiz also includes C-14 found in diamonds) somehow contradict radiocarbon dating, when the simple fact is that that trace C-14 formed recently by subterranean sources of radioactivity have absolutely nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.
In Message 482 you lied when you wrote, "I know how carbon dating works." Proof of that is that you have absolutely no clue that radiocarbon dating only makes use of atmospheric C-14 which is incorporated into plant tissue (and from there into animals). Recently produced subterranean C-14 is not and has never been a factor! But you keep telling that same stupid lie! And that you keep running away from it (which is precisely what you have just done!) demonstrates that you know full well that it's a lie.
What is wrong with you? Are you so utterly stupid? Insulting your intelligence is clearly not possible since you display no evidence of possessing any intelligence.
Simple test: can you recognize the significance of C-14 formed in the atmosphere versus C-14 formed deep underground? Do you know which is used in radiocarbon dating and which is not?
If you can answer those questions, then why do you persist in lying about it?
If you still want to persist in your lie about knowing how radiocarbon dating works, then describe it in detail! Specifically, describe where the C-14 comes from and how it gets into organic material. That should be trivially simple for anyone even only casually engaged with reality could answer it. But can you answer it? I doubt it very much, but do please give it a try. And, of course, if you still want to include C-14 produced by subterranean radiation then you must also describe in sufficient detail how that C-14 is supposed to get into organic material.
IOW, I'm calling your bluff.
General speaking, the results are manipulated
to obtain the expected age. Deny all you
want, but we both know this is true.
No, that is not true, but rather that is just yet another creationist lie that you've swallowed whole like a camel (while straining at the gnats of reality -- it's from the Gospels, so I doubt that you have ever encountered it).
Please cite examples, since your reference is so vague. But what I have heard from stupid creationists in the past was that they were talking about how when you submit a sample to a lab for testing you provide an estimate of its age. The very practical reason for that is for the lab to apply the right test: testing a millions-years-old sample with radiocarbon (especially if it is inorganic like a dino fossil) would yield bad results as would testing the Shroud of Turin (not old geologically speaking) with a uranium method (which test very old things).
It's like deciding whether to weigh something with a trucking scale, a bathroom scale, or a postal scale. You wouldn't weigh a letter on a trucking scale because the weight of that letter wouldn't even be detected by the scale giving a weight of zero. And you wouldn't weigh your car on your bathroom scale because that would just peg the scale at its maximum value (eg, 400 lb) giving a weight for your car of 400 pounds. Nor would you weigh yourself on either a trucking scale or a postal scale. Before you weigh something you need to choose a scale that would give you a meaningful weight.
That's about all that that is about. Or were you talking about something different? Do you even know the answer to that question?
In some instances the head and the tail of the
same fossils have been dated as much as
20,000 years between.
Yeah, you'll have to give a reference (from Hovind, I'm sure). Since we don't date a fossil directly but rather from its in situ location, there would be no such thing as different dates for head and tail both found in the same layer.
Are you talking about radiocarbon dating of frozen mammoths? I heard of that "different parts of the same body had different ages" claim before. It turns out that those were three different mammoths, not a single mammoth.
That's another creationist camel that you gulped right down.
Also, fossils are dated by the strata that they
are found in, and the strata is dated by the
fossils they contain.
Yes, and? But the way you say that means that you are insinuating circular reasoning. Same dishonest creationist lie, hasn't changed a bit.
Radiometric dating on rock is how long ago it solidified from being molten.
Radiometric dating cannot be performed on sedimentary rock since it is ground down and recycled older rock, so radiometric dating would just get the age of bit of old rock tested. However, we can tell which layers are older than others by the order in which they are stacked. We can also establish dates for layers from igneous intrusions which bracket them in. Therefore we can determine the age of a particular layer.
Fossils cannot dated directly (excluding organic specimens). For one thing, if you melt the fossil in order to "start its clock", then you have destroyed that fossil -- if it's a fossil, it hasn't been melted, so no radiometrically dating a fossil. Fossils result from burial and so are most commonly found in sedimentary rock, but we can arrive at a date for the layer it's found in as described above (extremely important that you don't just pull a fossil out of the ground and carry it to a museum).
So how do we identify a layer here to be part of that other layer way over there?
In geology it's done by with identifying characteristics which have been determined empirically, which includes index fossils. However, many of those index fossils are microscopic, eg diatom shells which evolve over time. Fossils such as the ones that we are interested in (eg, dinos) are not used a index fossils. Thus the fossils identifying the stratum (from which we know its age) are not the same as the fossils that get their age from which stratum they're in. There is no circular reasoning here.
There is absolutely nothing that supports
evolution.
Evolution is supported by almost everything since it's based in reality. However, creationism is divorced from reality and so has nothing to support it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 2:35 PM candle2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Dredge, posted 10-10-2022 8:44 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 37 of 278 (893585)
04-17-2022 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
04-14-2022 1:18 PM


Paulk, vs. 3 simply states "Let there be light."
In this verse God is simply removing debris
from earth's atmosphere, which permitted
light to enter. A person on the face of the
earth would have seen translucent light.
In verse 14 God speaks of specific lights in
the firmament of the heaven to divide day
from night; to be for signs and seasons.
They were to be for days and years.
Before day four light only permeated the
earth's atmosphere during the day. At night
there was stygian darkness.
On the fourth days God made visual
observation of the sun, moon, and stars
possible.
Vs. 16-18 are parenthetical statements
that indicate the sun, moon, and stars
had been made sometime in past.
Asah, which is translated made in vs 16
is in the verb form that denotes
completed action.
Chapter one of Roman's states that the
qualities of God can be seen just by
observing the world's around us.
It is so obvious from what has been
created that we are left without excuse
when we deny Him.
Speaking of these misguided professors.
It states that "professing themselves to
be wise, they become fools.
I believe this.

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 38 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2022 8:44 AM candle2 has replied
 Message 53 by dwise1, posted 04-17-2022 2:24 PM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 38 of 278 (893586)
04-17-2022 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by candle2
04-17-2022 8:01 AM


quote:
Paulk, vs. 3 simply states "Let there be light."
In this verse God is simply removing debris
from earth's atmosphere, which permitted
light to enter. A person on the face of the
earth would have seen translucent light.
Let us note that this is all imaginative interpretation. There is no mention of wreckage being cleared away or the light being translucent or even any indication that it is simply what someone on Earth would see. A plain reading is that there was no light at all prior to verse 3.
quote:
In verse 14 God speaks of specific lights in
the firmament of the heaven to divide day
from night; to be for signs and seasons.
They were to be for days and years.
And they are said to be created and set in the sky on the fourth day.
quote:
Before day four light only permeated the
earth's atmosphere during the day. At night
there was stygian darkness.
And yet the text gives no indication that the stars and planets even existed prior to the fourth day.
quote:
On the fourth days God made visual
observation of the sun, moon, and stars
possible
Again, this is just imaginative “interpretation”.
quote:
Vs. 16-18 are parenthetical statements
that indicate the sun, moon, and stars
had been made sometime in past.
Or so you assume. But where is the basis for this claim?
quote:
Asah, which is translated made in vs 16
is in the verb form that denotes
completed action.
Which would equally apply if the stars and planets had been created on the fourth day.
quote:
Chapter one of Roman's states that the
qualities of God can be seen just by
observing the world's around us.
It is so obvious from what has been
created that we are left without excuse
when we deny Him.
So the first chapter of Romans is wrong.
quote:
Speaking of these misguided professors.
It states that "professing themselves to
be wise, they become fools.
There is nothing about “misguided professors” in the post you were replying to. Nor anything previous in this post of yours.
quote:
I believe this.
I’m sure you think it foolish to disagree with stupid lies. But I hardly think that it is a Christian attitude.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 8:01 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 9:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 39 of 278 (893589)
04-17-2022 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
04-17-2022 8:44 AM


Okay Paulk, have it your way. It makes
much more sense to believe that God
created the sun on the first day and
that he created it again on the fourth day.
You can't seem to grasp how moronic
this reasoning is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2022 8:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 04-17-2022 10:03 AM candle2 has replied
 Message 41 by AZPaul3, posted 04-17-2022 10:07 AM candle2 has not replied
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2022 10:18 AM candle2 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 409 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 278 (893590)
04-17-2022 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by candle2
04-17-2022 9:55 AM


Why do you insist on trying to market a perversion of Christianity and the stories which got included in your Canon?
Is there some reason you want everyone to think Christians are simply total and complete imbeciles and Carny Freak Show Barkers?

My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 9:55 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 12:51 PM jar has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8519
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 41 of 278 (893591)
04-17-2022 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by candle2
04-17-2022 9:55 AM


You can't seem to grasp how moronic this reasoning is.
quote:
It makes much more sense to believe that God created the sun on the first day and that he created it again on the fourth day.
Yeah, that's about as moronic as you can get.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 9:55 AM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 42 of 278 (893592)
04-17-2022 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by candle2
04-17-2022 9:55 AM


quote:
Okay Paulk, have it your way. It makes
much more sense to believe that God
created the sun on the first day and
that he created it again on the fourth day.
If you want to believe that go right ahead. I certainly don’t believe anything of the sort.
Has it ever occurred to you that arrogantly spouting stupid falsehoods is a bad idea? Because you don’t seem to get that at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 9:55 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 1:05 PM PaulK has replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 43 of 278 (893600)
04-17-2022 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
04-17-2022 10:03 AM


Jar, I have been adamant about how life started.
I've laid it out there.
Now, you tell me how life started. And don't say
that this has nothing to do with evolution.
Either prove that life came from non-living
matter, or that it was created.
If you say that life began by chance, then
I challenge you to prove how this happened.
I challenge you to replicate it.
If you say that life was by design, then
I challenge you to prove that it was not the
God of the Bible who created it.
Where are all the transitional fossils?
There must, by all reasonable standards,
be hundreds of millions of them.
Why should science be restricted to naturalistic
causes rather than logical ones?
Can you explain In a step-by-step procedure
How the flagellum motor came to be? How
about the eye? Or the enormous complexities
of blood clotting?
Name me all the scientific breakthroughs due
to evolution?
Why do evolutionists place more importance on
ridiculous theories than they do on operational/
observable science?
What has been observed during all recorded
history is that one kind of animal always
reproduces the same kind of animal.
For example, a pig's offsprings will, and always
has been pigs. The same is true for humans.
This is called operational science, and it has
been replicated trillions of times.
It is impossible to replicate this mumbo-jumbo
nonsense you dish out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 04-17-2022 10:03 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 04-17-2022 1:09 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 51 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-17-2022 2:14 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 52 by jar, posted 04-17-2022 2:23 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 04-17-2022 11:15 PM candle2 has not replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 44 of 278 (893603)
04-17-2022 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by PaulK
04-17-2022 10:18 AM


I'm still waiting Paulk.
Tell me what you interpret the light
from day one and day 4 to be.
How can you criticize my viewpoints;
yet, are not willing to offer your own?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2022 10:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2022 1:23 PM candle2 has replied
 Message 47 by dwise1, posted 04-17-2022 1:27 PM candle2 has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9501
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 45 of 278 (893604)
04-17-2022 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by candle2
04-17-2022 12:51 PM


Just out of interest, why do you think your old book is right and all the other old books are wrong?

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 43 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 12:51 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