Tree Rings / Calendars

Originally posted by Agerg
googlefudge I think the object of the exercise in the post you quote and shoot down was to demonstrate how ridiculous is kelly's argument that even if all the evidence points to one conclusion we must be skeptical when it flies in the face of literal bible interpretation.


Moreover, as I've said in the past (more for debating utility than a notion I take s ...[text shortened]... is equivalent to the same depature on the part of kelly and those who champion his arguments.

Even if every observation of gravity we have thus made is a fluky 'special case' (although how you
can classify every observation ever made over the entire visible universe as a special case...)
it still exists.

I completely agree that Kelly's position is ridiculous for your stated reason... But claiming that gravity
might not exist because it's just a theory is just wrong.
And it's exactly the same kind of nonsense people spout about evolution.

So I felt obliged to correct it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Even if every observation of gravity we have thus made is a fluky 'special case' (although how you
can classify every observation ever made over the entire visible universe as a special case...)
it still exists.

I completely agree that Kelly's position is ridiculous for your stated reason... But claiming that gravity
might not exist becaus the same kind of nonsense people spout about evolution.

So I felt obliged to correct it.

Even if every observation of gravity we have thus made is a fluky 'special case' (although how you
can classify every observation ever made over the entire visible universe as a special case...)
it still exists.
It may well exist, but not necessarily in the form we have come to expect. As for every observation over the vsisble universe being a fluky special case, 2 inportant concepts here are "fluky" and the fact that such observations are, I assert, a tiny subset of the set of all actions that have taken place in the visible (and non-visible) universe - observed or not observed. Again, if kelly's mode of thinking is reasonable then my argument here is very much defensible.

Finally, what you corrected was, I think, a case of friendly fire - moon1969 seemed to be making an argument against kelly.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Even if every observation of gravity we have thus made is a fluky 'special case' (although how you
can classify every observation ever made over the entire visible universe as a special case...)
it still exists.
It may well exist, but not necessarily in the form we have come to expect. As for every observation over the vsisble universe being ...[text shortened]... I think, a case of friendly fire - moon1969 seemed to be making an argument against kelly.[/b]

It was still wrong.

I wasn't claiming gravity to 'exist in the form we currently think'. I very specifically, simply stated that gravity exists.
And that the theory that is our current best understanding of what it is that exists and why may well be wrong
but its the best we have right now.


I care not about "defeating the dastardly theists" but in putting forward and defending the truth,
and the search for it.

What Moon1969 said was wrong, so I posted a correction to that.

Kelly is so wrong that it's hard to know where to start.

But responding to Kelly with things that are also wrong isn't the place to start.

And Kelly's 'mode of thinking' is not reasonable by definition. So I need not entertain that idea or any that stem from it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It was still wrong.

I wasn't claiming gravity to 'exist in the form we currently think'. I very specifically, simply stated that gravity exists.
And that the theory that is our current best understanding of what it is that exists and why may well be wrong
but its the best we have right now.


I care not about "defeating the dastardly theists" b reasonable by definition. So I need not entertain that idea or any that stem from it.

Yes it was wrong - but I think that was sort of the point; I think nothing of countering a ludicrous claim with an equally ludicrous claim of my own; and if when mine is shot down it allows me to show them how to play the same game with theirs then it's win win! See, you can't counter the likes of RJHinds, kellyjay with common sense or a rational argument - they're just not receptive to it since they know jack about science and are proud of their ignorance.

Again as for gravity existing, the argument can be made that what ever you refer to as gravity is just an illusion - a big old misdirection away from the not so obvious 'fact' that gravity is nothing like the concept you attach to the word (such that only the word exists - not the referent) - and that it's just an amazing fluke that every time we observe gravity we keep seeing one type of behaviour that doesn't reflect what happens in general.

Originally posted by menace71
We know that some of the oldest Sequoias are over 4000 years old so we know the earth is older than that.

Some of the oldest Calendars are 5000 years old so once again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron#Oldest


Manny

I don't think we have any trees going back later than the time of Noah's flood.

Originally posted by Agerg
Kelly - what other argument should I bring here? your contention that numerous bodies of science just may be misunderstanding data which can reasonably point to only one conclusion is just an exercise in silliness.

Indeed I really don't know how such a mindset is cultivated that one will degrade and humiliate himself so far to defend the 6000 year old earth "theory". Your argument here doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

"Crikey, make sure you don't float off into space next time you get up!"
I found it hard to debate this piece of data that proved your point.
How about bringing NOTHING up if you cannot enter into a discussion.
How about voice your views on the topic instead of the trash talk you did
bring up. I don't care that we agree or disagree, but at least be agreeable.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't think we have any trees going back later than the time of Noah's flood.

Google 'Pando' (the Trembling Giant), be amazed, then dismiss it because it falsifies your world-view.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Crikey, make sure you don't float off into space next time you get up!"
I found it hard to debate this piece of data that proved your point.
How about bringing NOTHING up if you cannot enter into a discussion.
How about voice your views on the topic instead of the trash talk you did
bring up. I don't care that we agree or disagree, but at least be agreeable.
Kelly

It's a valid and reasonable statement so long as I uphold the same level of unreasonable scientific skeptism as yourself. Indeed, playing the same game as you (which is where you take offence) I'm saying that you should be suspicious of everything you know and have been told about gravity, taking all precautions not to float off into space. Indeed, how can scientists know everything about gravity? Were they there when 'gravity was first created'? What if they've been misinterpreting the data? We've never been further out into the space further than the moon so how can we possibly be sure about what happens in the entire universe? etcetera etcetera.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Google 'Pando' (the Trembling Giant), be amazed, then dismiss it because it falsifies your world-view.

Did you notice the following later in the article?

"Tree experts also note that the organism's age cannot be determined with
the level of precision found in tree rings; some claim Pando's age is closer
to 1 million years. Its current 80,000 year designation is based on a
complex set of factors."

One factor not considered was Noah's flood.

In the very beginning of the article it states the the age is an "estimate".
In other words, they are only guessing based on their wishful thinking.
This belongs with the rest of the evolutionists collection of "hogwash".

Originally posted by RJHinds
Did you notice the following later in the article?

"Tree experts also note that the organism's age cannot be determined with
the level of precision found in tree rings; some claim Pando's age is closer
to 1 million years. Its current 80,000 year designation is based on a
complex set of factors."

One factor not considered was Noah's flood.

In the ...[text shortened]... ful thinking.
This belongs with the rest of the evolutionists collection of "hogwash".

One factor not considered was Noah's flood.

Indeed. Space aliens, telepathy and magic were also disregarded. Basically, they restricted themselves to real stuff.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It was still wrong.

I wasn't claiming gravity to 'exist in the form we currently think'. I very specifically, simply stated that gravity exists.
And that the theory that is our current best understanding of what it is that exists and why may well be wrong
but its the best we have right now.


I care not about "defeating the dastardly theists" b reasonable by definition. So I need not entertain that idea or any that stem from it.

"Kelly is so wrong that it's hard to know where to start. "

I don't think so!
I've stated one theme which if you want to say it isn't true show me the flaw.

Each test for dating the distant past cannot be confirmed as acturate by itself.
So looking at them one at a time, we get a date, we do not know if it is true.
We look at another, we do not know its true.
We look at another, we do not know its true.
We look at another, we do not know its true.
We look at another, we do not know its true.
So again, does that say something, yes.
If these are acturate we see what the test show, baring anything we don't
know that changes the outcome, the dates are more than likely correct.
What is still true, still we do not know its true.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Kelly is so wrong that it's hard to know where to start. "

I don't think so!
I've stated one theme which if you want to say it isn't true show me the flaw.

Each test for dating the distant past cannot be confirmed as accurate by itself.
So looking at them one at a time, we get a date, we do not know if it is true.
We look at another, we do not kno ...[text shortened]... are more than likely correct.
What is still true, still we do not know its true.
Kelly

"I don't think so!"

Well of course you don't think your wrong, nobody who is wrong ever does.

The problem is that you have abandoned the only known and validated mechanism for testing
to see if what you believe matches reality.

"Each test for dating the distant past cannot be confirmed as accurate by itself.
So looking at them one at a time, we get a date, we do not know if it is true."

There is a principle (often misunderstood) called Occam's razor.

The problem you have is that we have many many different ways of gauging how old something is,
with varying degrees of precision.

For any one of them to be wrong (and massively so to fit your view of a young earth) you have to
introduce some special pleading and explanation for why that method is giving an answer massively
massively different from the one you want.

However the special pleading you introduce only works for that particular method of dating.
There are hundreds.
Each of which you have to introduce a new explanation of special pleading to explain why each is not
just wrong but massively so.

You have to introduce Hundreds if not thousands of violations of all known laws of physics in order to account
for every dating method that agrees that the earth is not young.

Now it could be that this is the case... But there is precisely zero evidence that this is so.

Given that the VASTLY overwhelming likelihood is that the dating methods are reasonable and that the earth and
the universe are old, very old.
It is not reasonable to claim otherwise without strong evidence to the contrary.

You also talk about there being a massive worldwide flood that buried all the lands on the earth, which is physically
impossible according to all the known laws of physics. And which left precisely no evidence whatsoever.
Is contradicted by the known existence of civilisations that are older than your proposed flood and evidently weren't
wiped out by it.
It Is also contradicted by all the DNA studies that show that all the species on the earth did not go through a pinch
point in the last few thousand years.
It is contradicted by the simple absurdity of the notion of a single wooden boat capable of containing all the animals of
the earth and their food for several months.
It is contradicted by the impossibility of collecting all those animals from around the world in an age where travel was so
hard, and many continents had yet to be discovered.
Particularly as this was supposed to be accomplished by only one family who belonged to a peoples who thought the
world was flat.

What you are claiming as true is not only supported by no evidence but is flatly contradicted by ALL known evidence AND
would violate the known laws of physics.

It is a fairy tale, who's genesis can be traced from earlier tales about floods.

Believing that such is true is absurd, and worthy of nothing but ridicule.

However you have abandoned the mechanisms that allow for testing beliefs against reality to determine there truth or
reasonableness.

You go wrong right from the start, by valuing faith, and not reason and evidence.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]"I don't think so!"

Well of course you don't think your wrong, nobody who is wrong ever does.

The problem is that you have abandoned the only known and validated mechanism for testing
to see if what you believe matches reality.

"[i]Each test for dating the distant past cannot be confirmed as accurate by itself.
So looking at s.

You go wrong right from the start, by valuing faith, and not reason and evidence.

[/i][/b]Occam's razor, seriously the only way you can "KNOW" these tests are giving
you the correct dates is for something to be the KNOWN good, you do not have
that! So what you have left is something that fits your so called point of view!

You don't know ... you cannot get past that without leaving room for error.

Each of those tests all share the same weaknesses, there is not a known good
to compare them too, so you are left with again, the unknown good judging
other unknown goods.

Good thing your not a dabetic and just taking a bunch of monitors and picking
the ones you think is good and not being able to actually have a doctor tell the
known good numbers!

Given that the dating methods work very well on short periods of time, does not
translate automatically that they would for great periods of time any more than
my eye sight is good far away does mean that it will be good close up.

Your simply taking what you want from these and making claims that are not
true! True being it is that your beliefs about dates are factual, they are just
pure and simple what your tests suggest to you. If you were to get what you
think is a better means to judge time, you'd change your tune to suit your
new method. If you want to deny you'd do that, I'd laugh in your face.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[/i]Occam's razor, seriously the only way you can "KNOW" these tests are giving
you the correct dates is for something to be the KNOWN good, you do not have
that! So what you have left is something that fits your so called point of view!

You don't know ... you cannot get past that without leaving room for error.

Each of those tests all share the ...[text shortened]... suit your
new method. If you want to deny you'd do that, I'd laugh in your face.
Kelly[/b]

They are like the blind leading the blind. How simple it is for God to make
fools out of those who think they are wise. 😏

Originally posted by Agerg
It's a valid and reasonable statement so long as I uphold the same level of unreasonable scientific skeptism as yourself. Indeed, playing the same game as you (which is where you take offence) I'm saying that you should be suspicious of everything you know and have been told about gravity, taking all precautions not to float off into space. Indeed, how can sci ...[text shortened]... how can we possibly be sure about what happens in the entire universe? etcetera etcetera.

I take offense in that you stop dealing with issues/debate and go after me
personally. If you read my position I have never said the ages of the earth
or universe isn't billions years old; I maintain I don't know how old it is.

I dislike you and others here who cannot seem to just carry on a conversation,
you have to go after the people you are talking to and insult instead of just
dealing with the topic at hand.

My skepticism is about what we can show in the here and now does not
always mean it is justified over longer periods of time. We can test a lot now,
and predict with more than a little measure of certainty events or outcomes as
long as we can control all the variables or the major ones in many tests. Where
we start losing control is when we don’t understand all the variables or their
weight in any given process.

If we were as flawless as you and others want to suggest we are, why don't we
have a handle on weather predictions? Unlike weather predictions dating
something billions of years old cannot be shown wrong, it isn’t falsifiable. We
can see sunny weather on days they said it would rain, or rain on days they
said would be sunny. So they can get it wrong we will see it, when they get it
right we will see that too.

With the billions of years, if you want to claim it is right and factual like another
poster here did, feel free.
Kelly