Originally posted by DragonFriendMy pleasure.
Thanks for the info.
I can now, at least, start to see why you are so adamant in your position.
DF
The data for the scientific point of view is complex, relatively complete (although we'd love more data!) and based solely on empirical data. The only way the biblical story could be correct would be if all the physical evidence in the world is wrong and was put there by a devious god. If that's what you want to believe, fine. But I'll stick with athiesm, it's more parsimonious.
Originally posted by dj2beckerokay, well, my biggest issues is the use of the words 'maybe' and 'perhaps'.
Care to highlight some of the crap?
Or should I take your word for it, seeing you took 4 minutes to thoroughly evaluate it.
He's always using it,
"Perhaps the earth was made from older pre-existing matter, or perhaps decay rates were briefly faster for some reason."
Where is his evidence for this? You wouldn't be allowed to write this in a scientific paper, without evidence. He has none to support his claims, only a bunch of maybes and perhaps.
"We can assume that the Precambrian rocks already existed when life began, and so the ages of the Precambrian rocks are not necessarily related to the question of how long life has existed on earth. The Cambrian period is conventionally assumed to have begun about 550 million years ago. Since Cambrian and later rocks are largely sedimentary and igneous (volcanic) rocks are found in Cambrian and later strata, if these rocks are really 550 million years old, then life must also be at least 550 million years old."
Completely igores fossil stromatolites, dated at 3.5 billion years old.
Really want me to continue? That's just what I found waiting for my toaster.
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckeryou can laugh all you want, most idiots do that , however only a true idiot would try to scoff at the data that scientist presents on that page. Playing word games may be fun for you, but the data is there for anybody to see.
I quote: [b]"There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years.
What????
Hundred thousand years of observation?????
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
This is great stuff FS!!!!
Do you have any more of this?
Man, what a laugh![/b]
Too bad you're too brainwashed to see it.
edit: a study of the event horizons of black holes might be more up to your speed.
The radius of the event horizon, r, for generalized black holes (in geometrized units) is
r = m + (m2 - q2 - s/m2)1/2,
where m is the mass of the hole, q is its electric charge, and s is its angular momentum.
The radius r of the event horizon for a Schwarzschild black hole of mass m is given by (in geometrized units) r = 2 m. In conventional units,
r = 2 G m/c2.
where G=6.672 x 10-11 N m2/kg2
Originally posted by scottishinnzCouldn't resist, could you. 🙂
My pleasure.
The data for the scientific point of view is complex, relatively complete (although we'd love more data!) and based solely on empirical data. The only way the biblical story could be correct would be if all the physical evidence in the world is wrong and was put there by a devious god. If that's what you want to believe, fine. But I'll stick with athiesm, it's more parsimonious.
DF
3 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerdj, I read that article and some of the others on the site and I don't understand how they, or you, or anybody could seriously hold those views. Its like the whole of modern biology, chemistry, physics, geology etc etc is just some atheist conspiracy. The site claims that the flood waters filled the oceans because of abrubt plate movements in the earth's crust, forming deep sea trenches and mountains in a matter of days, going against everything that any geologist has ever learned. It states that the ark is easily big enough to hold all of the animals on earth (including dinosaurs, lest we forget), but only if "kinds" are taken aboard and then post-flood turn in to the animals we see today. This requires a MUCH faster rate of evolution than any biologist would ever propose (given that the flood happened less than 10,00 years ago, right?). The dinosaurs too, well all of the dating techniques must be wrong, as they were obviously around at the same time as humans, writing off a lot of physics and chemistry (and the geology and biology again). It then even has the cheek to say that biology supports the view that all of the animals could be in a state of "hibernation" on board the ark, which I'm fairly sure is not the view of biologists. I know many scientists who are pretty religious, but none of them would take any of this crap as the truth. The amount of conspiracy theories that have to be invoked and good, repeatable science that would have to be wrong in order for it to be true is incredible. Would it not be easier to just look at it and go "hey, maybe the bible isn't literally correct, but God can still exist without this book of fables". I have absolutely no problem in a belief in God, I can't prove he doesn't exist (much like you can't prove he does). Many of my close friends and relatives are religious, its not an issue. What I do have a problem with is ignorance in the face of facts, just because you are so arrogant as to believe you must be correct. If proof came along tommorrow that the world was created 10,00 years ago, that also explained how everything we have observed could be wrong, I would glady accept it. I feel if proof came along tommorrow (which many people, including myself would say exists already) that the bible is nothing more than a book of nice stories about how to live your life etc, then you would still argue against it, giving less rational explanations than you do now (which would be some feat). God gave you a brain dj, use it, for I feel if he does exist, you are probably the narrow minded sort who would end up on the fiery side of eternity.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html
Originally posted by frogstompand a little more for dj to gripe about:
you can laugh all you want, most idiots do that , however only a true idiot would try to scoff at the data that scientist presents on that page. Playing word games may be fun for you, but the data is there for anybody to see.
Too bad you're too brainwashed to see it.
edit: a study of the event horizons of black holes might be more up to your spe ...[text shortened]... rized units) r = 2 m. In conventional units,
r = 2 G m/c2.
where G=6.672 x 10-11 N m2/kg2
cosmic censorship conjecture (R. Penrose, 1979)
The conjecture, so far totally undemonstrated within the context of general relativity, that all singularities (with the possible exception of the big bang singularity) are accompanied by event horizons which completely surround them at all points in time. That is, problematic issues with the singularity are rendered irrelevant, since no information can ever escape from a black hole's event horizon.
Originally posted by dj2beckerDo us a favour dj, define half-life. The learning needed to do it would do you good.
[b]We know the rates at which atoms of one radioactive isotope decay into another; this is observed in hundreds of labs every day. There is no "assumption" of the length of the half-lives, there is the fact of the length of the half-lives for different isotopes.
Seeing you are soooo qualified to in the scientific field, would you care to explain how ...[text shortened]... o swallow everything hook, line and sinker that is apparently "Science" I will not stop you.[/b]
D
Originally posted by corp1131I was pondering about something the other night, which I think might have some relevance here.
God gave you a brain dj, use it, for I feel if he does exist, you are probably the narrow minded sort who would end up on the fiery side of eternity.
I worked in the IT industry before. One of my tasks was to provide support to the users in the office. Sometimes, while they were still seated at the pc, I'd have to instruct them to do something with the mouse (click here, now there, then here, etc). After a couple of mouse clicks, they invariably became completely dependant on me giving more and more instructions (instead of me saying click on "Next", I suddenly had to actually point it out). If I didn't point out where "Next" was, they'd stare dumbly at the screen, unable to find it, even though they were all proficient with pcs.
It seems to me that there are parrallels between dj (and others) and my computer users. It transpired that when I started giving instruction, they entered "Receiving Instruction" mode, in which they couldn't operate independantly of more and more instruction. dj appears to have also become completely dependant on instruction, so much so that he is incapable of independant, analytical thought. Independant thought is dangerous for institutional religions, so I'm sure that dj's church are happy that he accepts whatever they tell him without analytical thought. Unfortunately, it has led him to denigrate (by instruction) the visible, provable role that the sciences play in our lives in favour of conspiracy theories that Jerry Fletcher would have been proud of.
D
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo if the rate of decay was exponential for, say, 1000 years, and then slowly leveled off, these differenet techniques would return different values?
Hi DF,
If they did vary, all techniques would vary independantly, because the decays constants would change independantly (based, probably on mass or something). However, since we can use multiple techniques to date the same sample to the same date it means that the decay constants must never change. Basically, it's like measuring the length of s ...[text shortened]... history[/i]. The chances of that eventuality being correct are several hundred billion to one.
DF
1 edit
Originally posted by DragonFriendYes.
So if the rate of decay was exponential for, say, 1000 years, and then slowly leveled off, these differenet techniques would return different values?
DF
[edit; oh, and there'd be no radiation now, of course, either. (which means that the planets core would be frozen solid, static, and we'd be currently getting thoroughly roasted by the cosmic rays emitted by the sun, of course.)]
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm confused (easy to do , huh?)
Yes.
[edit; oh, and there'd be no radiation now, of course, either. (which means that the planets core would be frozen solid, static, and we'd be currently getting thoroughly roasted by the cosmic rays emitted by the sun, of course.)]
If the rate of decay slowed, why would there be less radiation now than if the decay rate continuted to increase? It would appear at first glance that a reduced decay would leave more of what was decaying.
DF
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older "ages." Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating, points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
Hi DF,
If they did vary, all techniques would vary independantly, because the decays constants would change independantly (based, probably on mass or something). However, since we can use multiple techniques to date the same sample to the same date it means that the decay constants must never change. Basically, it's like measuring the length of s ...[text shortened]... history[/i]. The chances of that eventuality being correct are several hundred billion to one.
J. Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).
Originally posted by dj2beckerRead, and learn.
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older "ages." Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of y ...[text shortened]... The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/woodmorappe_henke.htm
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat do you do for a living just out of interest djbecker? If your not a nuclear physicist then WTF?
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older "ages." Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of y ...[text shortened]... The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).