1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    02 Aug '13 01:20
    Originally posted by humy
    This is pure nonsense. Obviously, none of them saw dinosaurs (other than possibly fossilized ones of course) and you are a moron for believing such extraordinary stupid absurdity.
    Can you provide us with physical evidence that they saw dinosaurs other than the mere baseless hearsay of a creationist propaganda site?
    And why is there not a single known dinosau ...[text shortened]... entific dating method, are ALL dated to be millions of years old and without a single exception?
    The dating methods that are used are flawed. Evolutionists try to prove long ages of time by certain theoretical dating methods. Yet as we analyze those dating methods, we find each of them to be highly flawed and extremely unreliable.

    "The dating of ancient events [millions of years ago] is an inexact science. " *Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), p. 29.

    http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm

    The Instructor
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    02 Aug '13 07:423 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The dating methods that are used are flawed. Evolutionists try to prove long ages of time by certain theoretical dating methods. Yet as we analyze those dating methods, we find each of them to be highly flawed and extremely unreliable.

    [b]"The dating of ancient events [millions of years ago] is an inexact science. " *Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), p. 29.


    http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm

    The Instructor[/b]
    The dating methods that are used are flawed.

    WOW what delusions. So, for example, the observed half-life of chemical elements, used for dating, is just flawed and a mass conspiracy by scientists trying to disprove your religion? WOW that's delusional.
    Just answer by first question I put to you which you still haven't answered:

    Can you provide us with physical evidence that they saw dinosaurs other than the mere baseless hearsay of a creationist propaganda site?

    we want actual direct references to the physical evidence that are not mere hearsay form a creationist site. -your notable silence on this will prove my point.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    02 Aug '13 08:342 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The dating methods that are used are flawed. Evolutionists try to prove long ages of time by certain theoretical dating methods. Yet as we analyze those dating methods, we find each of them to be highly flawed and extremely unreliable.

    [b]"The dating of ancient events [millions of years ago] is an inexact science. " *Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), p. 29.


    http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm

    The Instructor[/b]
    Sure dating is inexact. But it is CERTAINLY exact enough to tell the difference between an Earth 6000 years old and an Earth 4 billion years old.

    You are so deluded you can't see which way the sun shines anymore.

    Your delusional wish list doesn't care that scientists use about 20 different dating methods and we can see the decay day by day and project that into the past quite accurately. When 20 separate technologies for dating all converge on a date, you can be sure it is a real date. All except you of course.

    You just HATE people actually using the brains we were evolved with to actually figure out the world.

    You would be quite happy living 1000 years ago where people were so ignorant they argued about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    And put people to the stake for daring to deny religious dogma of your fairy tale religion.

    Yes, I can see you being one of the inquisitors. That would fit your personality quite well.

    Your new name here: Inquisitor not instructor.
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    02 Aug '13 09:08
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Sure dating is inexact. But it is CERTAINLY exact enough to tell the difference between an Earth 6000 years old and an Earth 4 billion years old.

    You are so deluded you can't see which way the sun shines anymore.

    Your delusional wish list doesn't care that scientists use about 20 different dating methods and we can see the decay day by day and projec ...[text shortened]... That would fit your personality quite well.

    Your new name here: Inquisitor not instructor.
    No one in the medieval period asked that question. Thomas Aquinas wondered if more than one angel could be in the same place at the same time - or in modern language is an angel a fermion or a boson. There is no reference to it before the 17th century, when it was used by protestants to ridicule medieval writers. 1,000 years ago England was being invaded by the Danes, King Sven was crowned on Christmas day. So there probably wasn't much time for angels and pins. I looked it up on Wikipedia and someone did try to work out an answer:
    Anders Sandberg has presented a calculation based on theories of information physics and quantum gravity, establishing an upper bound of 8.6766×10^49 angels

    So, there you are.

    I don't think Inquisitor is appropriate, it implies a searching for knowledge, and it is not knowledge that RJ seems to be seeking.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    02 Aug '13 11:21
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    No one in the medieval period asked that question. Thomas Aquinas wondered if more than one angel could be in the same place at the same time - or in modern language is an angel a fermion or a boson. There is no reference to it before the 17th century, when it was used by protestants to ridicule medieval writers. 1,000 years ago England was being inva ...[text shortened]... te, it implies a searching for knowledge, and it is not knowledge that RJ seems to be seeking.
    I was thinking of inquisitor in the sense of punisher. He wishes to punish those who dare speak out against the bible fairy tales.

    I just threw out the angel dance thing off the top of my head. Didn't know the dating of that particular debate.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    02 Aug '13 14:351 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    The dating methods that are used are flawed.

    WOW what delusions. So, for example, the observed half-life of chemical elements, used for dating, is just flawed and a mass conspiracy by scientists trying to disprove your religion? WOW that's delusional.
    Just answer by first question I put to you which you still haven't answered:

    Can you ...[text shortened]... e not mere hearsay form a creationist site. -your notable silence on this will prove my point.
    There have been stories about dinosaurs (called dragons) from ancient people and also drawings and artwork on pottery and such of creatures that look like what we think certain dinosaurs looked like. After all, no one today has made real photographs of these dinosaurs either. I suppose they could have guessed at what the dinosaurs looked like from the skeletons like we have today. However, we are truly only guessing that dinosaurs or dragons became extinct long before man appeared on the Earth. It is not a scientific fact based on observation or any other method known to be real science that does not include unproved assumptions.

    The Instructor
  7. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    02 Aug '13 15:22
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There have been stories about dinosaurs (called dragons) from ancient people and also drawings and artwork on pottery and such of creatures that look like what we think certain dinosaurs looked like. After all, no one today has made real photographs of these dinosaurs either. I suppose they could have guessed at what the dinosaurs looked like from the skel ...[text shortened]... er method known to be real science that does not include unproved assumptions.

    The Instructor
    Do you want to specify what the "unproven assumptions" to which you referred are?
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    02 Aug '13 15:27
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Do you want to specify what the "unproven assumptions" to which you referred are?
    No, there are too many to mention.

    The Instructor
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    02 Aug '13 15:51
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There have been stories about dinosaurs (called dragons) from ancient people and also drawings and artwork on pottery and such of creatures that look like what we think certain dinosaurs looked like. After all, no one today has made real photographs of these dinosaurs either. I suppose they could have guessed at what the dinosaurs looked like from the skel ...[text shortened]... er method known to be real science that does not include unproved assumptions.

    The Instructor
    We know there were fossils of dino's sticking out of cliffs that early humans saw since they were still around when science started kicking in. That is the origin for your dragons. Just fossils sticking out of a cave or cliff.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    02 Aug '13 15:52
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No, there are too many to mention.

    The Instructor
    There can never be too many of anything to mention one of them. There can only be too many to mention all of them.
    That you are unwilling to mention even one suggests only one thing - there aren't any, and you are lying as usual.
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    02 Aug '13 16:07
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No, there are too many to mention.

    The Instructor
    If you refuse to substantiate your claim that there are "unproven assumptions" in the dating methods then there is no reason for us to accept it.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    02 Aug '13 16:21
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    If you refuse to substantiate your claim that there are "unproven assumptions" in the dating methods then there is no reason for us to accept it.
    Here are a few assumptions to get you started:

    The age of the Universe is the inverse of Hubble’s constant.

    Light travels.

    The constant rate of the laying down of sedimentary deposits.

    All fossils in lower sedimentary deposits are older than those on top.

    The age of geological columns.

    Sedimentary rock layers always start horizontal and then are tilted after they formed, to form sloped strata as we see today.

    Most rock dating methods rely on the following basic assumptions:

    1. Initial conditions are known
    2. Initial ratio of daughter/parent isotopes is known
    3. A constant decay rate
    4. There is no leaching or addition of parent or daughter isotopes

    The Instructor
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    02 Aug '13 16:36
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Here are a few assumptions to get you started:

    The age of the Universe is the inverse of Hubble’s constant.

    Light travels.

    The constant rate of the laying down of sedimentary deposits.

    All fossils in lower sedimentary deposits are older than those on top.

    The age of geological columns.

    Sedimentary rock layers always start horizontal and the ...[text shortened]... decay rate
    4. There is no leaching or addition of parent or daughter isotopes

    The Instructor
    Ok, show us your magical refutations.
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    02 Aug '13 16:536 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Here are a few assumptions to get you started:

    The age of the Universe is the inverse of Hubble’s constant.

    Light travels.

    The constant rate of the laying down of sedimentary deposits.

    All fossils in lower sedimentary deposits are older than those on top.

    The age of geological columns.

    Sedimentary rock layers always start horizontal and the ...[text shortened]... decay rate
    4. There is no leaching or addition of parent or daughter isotopes

    The Instructor

    Light travels.

    err, you deny this!? Wow that's stupid even for you.
    The constant rate of the laying down of sedimentary deposits.

    This assumption is generally not made. Geologists are obviously well aware that that rate varies with seasons and varies with other variable conditions.
    All fossils in lower sedimentary deposits are older than those on top.

    This assumption is also generally not made because geologists are obviously well aware that sedimentary rock is often inverted over millions of years due to ground movements and they would generally try and find out which way up it is and take that into account.
    The age of geological columns.

    why would that be an “assumption” after it is dated using several different dating methods that give the same result? This proves the age of it -no “assuming” required.
    Sedimentary rock layers always start horizontal and then are tilted after they formed, to form sloped strata as we see today.

    are you saying they generally didn't start horizontal? If so, how do you explain that mystery? You do accept the way gravity works -right?
    Most rock dating methods rely on the following basic assumptions:

    1. Initial conditions are known
    2. Initial ratio of daughter/parent isotopes is known
    3. A constant decay rate
    4. There is no leaching or addition of parent or daughter isotopes

    1, No, this isn't assumed for most dating methods. Generally either the particular relevant initial condition is a known fact with the other initial conditions being irrelevant and thus not assumed for dating purposes or there is no relevant initial condition needed for dating. One example of the latter would be when dating by counting the annual layers from one that is currently being laid down because this requires just counting the layers -what "initial condition" is assumed there?
    2, that's because it is known. There are GOOD REASONS why the initial ratios are the way they are.
    3, A constant decay rate of any given chemical element is determined by the laws of physics thus this is not an assumption. Have you got any physical evidence that the decay rate changes? -answer, no.
    4, why would there be “leaching” in particular? Have you got any evidence that sufficient 'leaching' has occurred to drastically interfere with the results? And “leaching” and "addition" from what place to what other place and why don't we see this in those places? and why would such "leaching" and "addition" just happen by massive coincidence to always miraculously happen to ALL types of isotopes used for dating in such a way as to falsely indicate old Earth rather than young earth!? -there is just so much wrong with that!
  15. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    02 Aug '13 17:143 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Here are a few assumptions to get you started:

    The age of the Universe is the inverse of Hubble’s constant.

    Light travels.

    The constant rate of the laying down of sedimentary deposits.

    All fossils in lower sedimentary deposits are older than those on top.

    The age of geological columns.

    Sedimentary rock layers always start horizontal and the ...[text shortened]... decay rate
    4. There is no leaching or addition of parent or daughter isotopes

    The Instructor
    I'll focus on the physics related points, since Humy gave good answers to the geology based ones.

    The age of the Universe is the inverse of Hubble’s constant.

    The inverse of the Hubble constant is the Hubble time, and is the time taken for the universe to increase in size by a factor of the base of natural logarithms. The Hubble time is of the order of 13.4 billion years. The universe is thought to have undergone a period of very rapid expansion early on which slowed down to the current drift later. So the age of the universe is thought to be greater than one Hubble time.

    Light travels

    It is unclear what you mean by this, you could either be asking me to prove that light travels through all the points between its source and destination or you could mean that we cannot prove that light does not go at a different speed when outside the solar system. Your hope being that this gives a loop-hole to mean that light from very distant stars didn't have to be created mid-flight and that this messes up things like parallax measurements of distances to stars.

    I'll answer the literal point first - light passes through all the points on its path. We know this is the case because if you shine a torch on a wall, and then put a lens between the torch and the wall the spot on the wall becomes smaller, due to focusing, so the light must have passed through the lens and not have been teleported straight to the wall.

    If light moved at a significantly different speed outside the solar system we would get lensing effects due to the change of speed of the light on entering the solar system. The celestial sphere doesn't change in the right way during an orbit of the earth around the sun for light to change speed significantly on approach to earth.

    3. A constant decay rate

    Altering the decay rates of radioactive materials means tinkering with the strength of the two nuclear forces. They cannot be changed much without rendering life impossible. They have not been observed to be changing and these things are measured with extreme precision.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree