3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzExactly. But you assume that they are NOT variable, and thus your similarity in results prove nothing, since there is evidence to suggest that the decay rate ARE variable.
But not the same specific ones. If the decay constants were wrong [or variable], the difference, when measuring a time interval so big, would be enormous. Much, much bigger than 2%!
Originally posted by PhuzudakaWhat utter rot.
Exactly. But you assume that they are NOT variable, and thus your similarity in results prove nothing, since there is evidence to suggest that the decay rate ARE variable.
What evidence? Perhaps you should tell Mr Einstein about that, I'm pretty sure he'd be interested.
Originally posted by PhuzudakaWhat he said was that without assuming that they are not variable, the comparison of different dating methods can prove that they are not variable to within a certain accuracy.
Exactly. But you assume that they are NOT variable, and thus your similarity in results prove nothing, since there is evidence to suggest that the decay rate ARE variable.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut the accuracy you are quibbling about is just that: Quibbling. The differance between methods now, and I think there are about 14 separate methods of age measurement now, they all agree within maybe 5 percent or so. That is a far cry from what you people so wish for, your needed differance of 6 orders of magnitude variance. The modern agreement now is in the order of a few percent, so one dude might say the earth is 4.4 billion years old and another 4.45 billion years old, not one dude saying the earth is 3 billion years old and another saying the earth is 30 million years old. See the differance?
What he said was that without assuming that they are not variable, the comparison of different dating methods can prove that they are not variable to within a certain accuracy.
If you don't, you are not interested in real science but only in the politics of the religious war against science.
Originally posted by scottishinnzDid you even read my previous post, when I told you exactly what evidence?
What utter rot.
What evidence? Perhaps you should tell Mr Einstein about that, I'm pretty sure he'd be interested.
Mr Einstein's theory of relativity has nothing to do with it. But of course he is too busy decomposing in his grave right now to worry about that.
Originally posted by sonhouseBut of course they all rely on the assumptions of uniformatarianism, which there is plenty of evidence against.
But the accuracy you are quibbling about is just that: Quibbling. The differance between methods now, and I think there are about 14 separate methods of age measurement now, they all agree within maybe 5 percent or so. That is a far cry from what you people so wish for, your needed differance of 6 orders of magnitude variance. The modern agreement now is in ...[text shortened]... e not interested in real science but only in the politics of the religious war against science.
Originally posted by PhuzudakaThe theory of relativity has everything to do with it!!! Matter is being transformed into energy, that's what radioactive decay is!!! If the Theory of Relativity isn't the necessary theory for that, well, I don't know what is.....
Did you even read my previous post, when I told you exactly what evidence?
Mr Einstein's theory of relativity has nothing to do with it. But of course he is too busy decomposing in his grave right now to worry about that.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are speaking from an abysmal pit of ignorance on the way science operates. It is by no means peaceful. It's a fight to the finish in the journals and the better proof wins. Do you think Newton just rolled over and died when his corpuscular theory of light was attacked?
'science'
Where truth is agreed upon by those who claim they know what they
are talking about.
Kelly
I am guessing you don't even know what I am talking about but there has been a debate going on for four hundred years as to whether light is as Newton contended, 'corpuscular' that is to say, a little bullet,
or as Young said, that light is a wave:
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~zgap118/2/yds.html
Now it turns out they are both right and both sides of the fence fought this tooth and nail for centuries. You think that was a case of science by committee and everthing just gets rubberstamped?
You hold your head in the sand even in that regard, you just want to spout incredibly uneducated generalities about science and scientists to keep up your rational that everyone is wrong and only YOU and the bible have the truth.
Originally posted by scottishinnzLOL
And you know better, right?
If not, shut the heck up.
My knowing better has nothing to do with it, is it bottom line true
or not. You want to "BELIEVE" you have a handle on the truth, you
want to shut up those that disagree with you, I'd say you have a
lot in common with quite a few religious people around the world.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm not saying everyone one is wrong that I disagree with that is your
You are speaking from an abysmal pit of ignorance on the way science operates. It is by no means peaceful. It's a fight to the finish in the journals and the better proof wins. Do you think Newton just rolled over and died when his corpuscular theory of light was attacked?
I am guessing you don't even know what I am talking about but there has been a debat ...[text shortened]... s to keep up your rational that everyone is wrong and only YOU and the bible have the truth.
propaganda not mine, I have been saying you believe things, as I
do, and you come at your beliefs through different means than I do.
You find that objectionable, not my problem that is yours. It is still
faith and beliefs you want to claim otherwise, but it what it is.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is certainly becoming a recurring theme with you, and you either aren't articulating it well or one of us is wildly stupid. 😉
I'm not saying everyone one is wrong that I disagree with that is your
propaganda not mine, I have been saying you believe things, as I
do, and you come at your beliefs through different means than I do.
You find that objectionable, not my problem that is yours. It is still
faith and beliefs you want to claim otherwise, but it what it is.
Kelly
Do you ever rate the validity of two ideas? For instance is the theory of relativity any more valid in your mind than the existence of the Easter Bunny? Basically, are some ideas better (more accurate, better supported with evidence etc etc) than others? Are all ideas and/or beliefs equally valid in your mind?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd I keep telling you its not belief, it's working knowledge that can change. A belief system doesn't change. How many times do we have to tell you that? 300 years ago Newtonian gravity worked for everything, then Einstein showed there were modifications needed for the whole story so that 'belief' as you so inaccurately call it, also changed. Your incoherant fairy tale that you call your belief system was the same 2000 years ago and was the same 1000 years ago and
I'm not saying everyone one is wrong that I disagree with that is your
propaganda not mine, I have been saying you believe things, as I
do, and you come at your beliefs through different means than I do.
You find that objectionable, not my problem that is yours. It is still
faith and beliefs you want to claim otherwise, but it what it is.
Kelly
the same 500 years ago and will be the same for the rest of your life since you are unable to change and it will be the same for your children if you chose to brainwash them the same as your parents brainwashed you so if the christian so-called church is still here 500 years from now it will still be the same fairy tale with little or no change. Do you get my drift here? There is a BIG differance if our knowledge can update as opposed to your belief system which is forever fixed, no change possible. Thats the differance between working knowledge and your belief system.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's not entirely true. I doubt that today's Biblical literalists have much in common with the early Christians. Even the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches appear to have significant doctrinal differences. The beliefs of Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims diverge, while Sufis are considered heretical by both. Judaism is a veritable wilderness of interpretation, although it has preserved its rituals. Hinduism has undergone its shifts. And so on. What many rationalists lack is the ability to find meaning in such belief systems.
A belief system doesn't change.