speed of light

I think, when he shows some willingness to learn by those who know, he will be in another situation.

I don't think his methods are well appreciated even in the Spiritual Forum in matters.
"KellyJay Rhetorics" are never appreciated... By anyone... Anywhere...

Originally posted by MattP
I have directly answered your question. I provided a fairly clear deffinition of time that is more then suitable for the situations we are considering.

edit: This is an example of avoidence, you have totaly ignored my very large post which answered your question, then claimed that I did not answer it!

Wow, that was your answer, when we meet?
You don't address past, present, future you don't address anything
outside of when. I guess I missed the deep meaning I could have
gotten that from a wall clock on what time is. I suggest you and I and
the rest of your merry men part company, you cannot have a
conversation with out digs at me it isn't worth it for me either to have
read your insults while looking for a point that really matters.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Wow, that was your answer, when we meet?
You don't address past, present, future you don't address anything
outside of when. I guess I missed the deep meaning I could have
gotten that from a wall clock on what time is. I suggest you and I and
the rest of your merry men part company, you cannot have a
conversation with out digs at me it isn't worth it for me either to have
read your insults while looking for a point that really matters.
Kelly

The use of time as a coordinate is more then sufficient for a discussion about dating methods. Also, it is a perfectly adequate definition of time.

Human perceptions of past, present, future are no different from left, centre, right. Because we perceive time to be different from spacial dimensions does not mean that it actually is. Time is a very complex subject, making the laws of physics time and space invariant is a problem that has troubled even the greatest physicists such as Dirac and Schrodinger. But I do not intend to get into a discussion with you about these aspects of time as you do not have the required knowledge to understand or debate this issue.

The bottom line is that you are trying to wriggle out of a hole. I have pointed out why radioactive dating is a perfectly fine method for dating things and you reply with "define time, the rest can wait", in an attempt to undermine the basic principles of dating methods by casting a doubt on what time is. You comment that you could have "gotton my definition of time from a wall clock" - you are correct, for the purposes of dating, time is simply a dimension which we move forward through at a set rate, no different from moving in the x-direction at a constant speed. So you have drawn attention to how unnecessary your question was.

You still have made no attempt at all to answer my questions, if you dont have the ability to answer it you should say so. Until you demonstrate a basic understanding of the things you talk about, or ask for help understanding them, we will make no progress.

edit: your response to my definition "wow, that was your answer, when we meet?" shows you did not understand it at all. I was using a meeting as an example of using time as a coordinate, then going on to talk about the variable nature of space-time and how we currently take it into account. I am sure most other people would not have thought my definition was anything like "Time is so we can meet up".

Originally posted by MattP
Just one more thing I would like to add to what I have said above.

Kelly, if you are not satisfied with my answer to your question or if you would like anything clarified please feel free to say so. Also, feel free to ask additional questions that have been raised by my post or which are unrelated.

However, please also answer my question.

My point is ...[text shortened]... that you cannot avoid answering by simply firing lots of questions about - it will be noticed.

"Everybody on here" does not agree with you. KJ has a right to her opinion and to express it--wrong or not. He doesn't HAVE to accept what you or anybody else says, and he CERTAINLY owes you know answer to some textbook exercise. You are an arrogant, tactless bully.

Who do you think you are?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
"Everybody on here" does not agree with you. KJ has a right to her opinion and to express it--wrong or not. He doesn't HAVE to accept what you or anybody else says, and he CERTAINLY owes you know answer to some textbook exercise. You are an arrogant, tactless bully.

Who do you think you are?

Frankly, I don't see any bullying or arrogance on Mattp's part here. Yes, he's thrown a few names about and I'd disagree with him using them, but in some of the cases I think KJ's posts have somewhat deserved it.

Frankly, KJ hasn't really demonstrated any real attempt to answer any questions posed - throughout the thread, yet seems to expect others to explain repeatedly sometimes the same things and sometimes appears to have not even read the posts posted in response to his(hers?).

No, he doesn't have to accept what anyone says. That's true. He also doesn't have to post in this thread. One would assume that if he's posting in this thread then he's interested in learning something and possibly open to changing his mind but that hasn't been apparent.

These conversations are expected to be a give and take and KJ quite simply repeatedly ignores questions asked of him and even ignores answers given to his own questions.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Frankly, I don't see any bullying or arrogance on Mattp's part here. Yes, he's thrown a few names about and I'd disagree with him using them, but in some of the cases I think KJ's posts have somewhat deserved it.

Frankly, KJ hasn't really demonstrated any real attempt to answer any questions posed - throughout the thread, yet seems to expect others to ...[text shortened]... ignores questions asked of him and even ignores answers given to his own questions.

On the other hand, KJ may post here to try to convince others on the fence to flip over to the religious view. I think that is a possibility, a large possibility. An agenda in other words.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Frankly, I don't see any bullying or arrogance on Mattp's part here. Yes, he's thrown a few names about and I'd disagree with him using them, but in some of the cases I think KJ's posts have somewhat deserved it.

Frankly, KJ hasn't really demonstrated any real attempt to answer any questions posed - throughout the thread, yet seems to expect others to ...[text shortened]... ignores questions asked of him and even ignores answers given to his own questions.

Thank you PsychoPawn,

I acknowledge that I have at times been condescending, and for that I am genuinely sorry. However, it was only out of frustration. Whilst I realise that this is a poor excuse, I think that many people who read the thread will, in balance, see why it has been very frustrating and that Kelly has refused to debate properly and does not have an appropriate level of understanding to have sensible debates on the subject.

Yes, Kelly does have the right to his own opinion, however, if he cannot justify it with reasoned argument then one must question the validity of that opinion. The right to on opinion does not give the right to blindly say your opinion to others when you have no supporting evidence and in fact there is a wealth of evidence that suggest your opinion is entirely incorrect.

Debate is an important part of science, and disagreements between scientists are common place. However, both parties must produce evidence in support of their own opinion. Kelly has failed to produce such evidence for many of his views, such as the unreliability of radioactive dating. What's more, Kelly asks questions but is not willing to answer them.

I am sorry if some people think I am harsh. I hope that people will read the thread and come to their own view on the matter after reading the entire correspondence.

Originally posted by MattP

Yes, Kelly does have the right to his own opinion, however, if he cannot justify it with reasoned argument then one must question the validity of that opinion. The right to on opinion does not give the right to blindly say your opinion to others when you have no supporting evidence and in fact there is a wealth of evidence that suggest your opinion is entirely incorrect.

WRONG! The right to an opinion DOES INDEED give one the right to blindly say anything, evidence or not, whether YOU think there's a wealth of evidence against that opinion or not. You are a smug elitist.

Here's my "blind" opinion: Once saved, always saved.
Here's another: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
A third: I don't trust the various age-determining radioactive tests either; they've been wrong many times, (and I DON'T have to cite a reference either).
Another: The only way to the Father in heaven is through his son, Jesus Christ.

Does it bother you that this is appearing in the sacred science forum? TOUGH! It's here and you can't stop me. Or KJ. Or anyone.
Did you see any supporting evidence for my blind opinions? Funny, it LOOKS like I've got the right to say them...it's right in front of you in black and white.

When announcing a right we don't have, one should be VERY careful.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
WRONG! The right to an opinion DOES INDEED give one the right to blindly say anything, evidence or not, whether YOU think there's a wealth of evidence against that opinion or not. You are a smug elitist.

Here's my "blind" opinion: Once saved, always saved.
Here's another: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
A third: I don't ...[text shortened]... ck and white.

When announcing a right we don't have, one should be VERY careful.

Well then. In my opinion, you are an ashole

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well then. In my opinion, you are an ashole

Hehe, a good one! 😵
If you can say wathever you like, then this is totally okay!

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
WRONG! The right to an opinion DOES INDEED give one the right to blindly say anything, evidence or not, whether YOU think there's a wealth of evidence against that opinion or not. You are a smug elitist.

Here's my "blind" opinion: Once saved, always saved.
Here's another: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
A third: I don't ck and white.

When announcing a right we don't have, one should be VERY careful.

hehe, I think Sonhouse and Fabian have highlighted the flaw in your argument.

On a serious note, whilst people do have the right to form whatever opinion they want - if they are discussing their opinion it is fair to want them to give a reasoned logic for it.

Where do you draw the line? Religious people sometimes prey on vulnerable people, spouting the kind of unreasoned nonsense you have just done to people who are down and out. They promise things which they have no evidence for and the vulnerable people are so disparate to believe that they do so without thinking clearly. This is clearly morally wrong. (Hence Sonhouse's comment about KJ possibly having an agenda).

If someone has an opinion that is clearly wrong then you are correct in saying that they have every right to hold that opinion. But when they express that opinion it is important that other people point out the flaws and lack of evidence that the opinion is based on. The person with the incorrect opinion can respond with a counter argument, but hopefully through reasoned debate any false ideas will be weeded out. This prevents things like racial extremism from taking hold, as people who express racist opinions cannot back them up with evidence.

When religion is involved however, people seem to think that it is OK to use arguments like "I sincerely believe this - it is a very important belief to me" and do not see the need to justify their opinion with reasoned logic and reproducible evidence. This is dangerous indeed.

Should people be allowed to express opinions like "the holocaust didn't happen"? By your logic it would be perfectly OK for someone to fund an advertising campaign with that message in an attempt to convince people that it is all a big conspiracy - I find that abhorrent. I think that when opinions are definitely incorrect; when they are produced without a shred of evidence; or when the evidence they are based on is widely discredited; it is important to point out that the opinion is not valid.

By your logic it is aright for a racist to establish a political party and to campaign using lies. The racist could say whatever he/she wanted and it is OK because it is their opinion - again, I find this abhorrent.

The bottom line is that whilst people are entitled to their own opinions on matters, that does not give them to right to lie. This is less clear cut about things which are not understood, but for things that are understood very well it is simply dishonest to say that they are unreliable.

(I thought that "thou shalt not lie" was a commandment)

When unreasoned opinion is allowed to spread unchecked it leads to attitudes like racial intolerance. It would be a very backwards step for society to allow people to behave in the way you are advocating.

edit: you seem to imply that I am advocating restricting people's freedoms. This is not the case, I am saying that if someone chooses to express an opinion they had better be able to back it up with evidence and reasoned argument - because it is societies responsibility to challenge incorrect opinions. You have the right to say whatever opinion you want - but not the right to outright lie to people. There is a fine line which people like KJ must be very careful they do not cross.

Originally posted by MattP
The use of time as a coordinate is more then sufficient for a discussion about dating methods. Also, it is a perfectly adequate definition of time.

Human perceptions of past, present, future are no different from left, centre, right. Because we perceive time to be different from spacial dimensions does not mean that it actually is. Time is a very complex ...[text shortened]... ople would not have thought my definition was anything like "Time is so we can meet up".

I'm sure you feel what you said was perfectly adequate, I don't think
so, and here is why. If we were to apply how you defined it to real life
it would go like this, at the corner of Main and Elm at 6PM, you have
location and a time. From that I'm suppose to understand how time
it defined? Just because of how you described location where, and
time when? It may be good enough for you, I'm sure it is for the
some of the others here too. It did not define time at all as far as I
was concern, it was closer to just using the word in a sentence no
more.

With respect to past, present, and future and you saying that is no
different than left, centre, or right, you believe we can change time by
stressing it properly, and do you believe the same thing about left,
centre, and right by stressing them properly too? Can you go in
one direction left, stress your mode of travel and without changing
direction go right even for a moment, simple due to the stress of
your means of travel?

If you honestly think time is a complex subject you still feel that how
you defined it to me was good enough?

You can start another thread on dating methods if you like, I'll join it.
My complaint against them is there is nothing but assumptions telling
us that those readings are correct if they go billions or millions of
years. That is NOT saying they are not correct, but be real about it, we
have no means to test that against items we know are that old, we
can test them against items that we assume are that old, because of
other assumptions, but it is a house of assumptions when it comes
to dating items that old.
Kelly

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
"Everybody on here" does not agree with you. KJ has a right to her opinion and to express it--wrong or not. He doesn't HAVE to accept what you or anybody else says, and he CERTAINLY owes you know answer to some textbook exercise. You are an arrogant, tactless bully.

Who do you think you are?

KJ is a he just so you know.
Kelly 🙂

Originally posted by MattP
Thank you PsychoPawn,

I acknowledge that I have at times been condescending, and for that I am genuinely sorry. However, it was only out of frustration. Whilst I realise that this is a poor excuse, I think that many people who read the thread will, in balance, see why it has been very frustrating and that Kelly has refused to debate properly and does not ...[text shortened]... ad the thread and come to their own view on the matter after reading the entire correspondence.

Have I shot at you the way you have at me over and over again? I
do not think I'm doing anything at all wrong in what or how I disagree
with you. As I pointed out to you before, you it seems are having a
discussion with me, I on the other hand found myself talking to more
than a few people, granted some were just being a$$es, but they
cannot help themselves they never rise above that. Why don't you
pop onto a board where it is you trying to defend your point of view
with a bunch of people who spend half of their time insulting you, and
see if you let a discussion point get by you from time to time.
Kelly