What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by KellyJay
How many times have I covered this. You are translating rate with
time, which of okay if you are looking at a stop watch. You start it,
it runs, you stop it, and the passage of time is there to see. Rate
is only good if you know how long the stop watch was running, if
you don't know all you know is rate not time.
Kelly

If you know the rate and the concentration of products at T1 you can then calculate the initial concentrations at T0. with that information you can calculate the difference between T0 and T1.

Hows the lying and sophistry?

Originally posted by KellyJay
How many times have I covered this. You are translating rate with
time, which of okay if you are looking at a stop watch. You start it,
it runs, you stop it, and the passage of time is there to see. Rate
is only good if you know how long the stop watch was running, if
you don't know all you know is rate not time.
Kelly

that doesn't make any seanse. rate is a function of time, if you know how many things have happened and the rate at which they happen you know by definition how much time has gone past. please clarify what you mean.

Originally posted by googlefudge
that doesn't make any seanse. rate is a function of time, if you know how many things have happened and the rate at which they happen you know by definition how much time has gone past. please clarify what you mean.

You know of a candle that once lit will burn for 50 hours.
You walk into the room and you come accross one of these candles.
When you walk in it was lit.
It is half way burned through when you first see it.
Can you know if it was lit for 25 strait hours just by knowing rate
and how far the candle has been already been burned down, if that
is all you know?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You know of a candle that once lit will burn for 50 hours.
You walk into the room and you come accross one of these candles.
When you walk in it was lit.
It is half way burned through when you first see it.
Can you know if it was lit for 25 strait hours just by knowing rate
and how far the candle has been already been burned down, if that
is all you know?
Kelly

That's a misleading analogy.

Radiocarbon dating does not work like that.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
That's a misleading analogy.

Radiocarbon dating does not work like that.

Really, you don't think not knowing how long a process has been
going on matters, making what I said some how a misleading
analogy. Okay, if that is what you believe, we disagree.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you don't think not knowing how long a process has been
going on matters, making what I said some how a misleading
analogy. Okay, if that is what you believe, we disagree.
Kelly

Tell us Kelly, how do you stop radioactive material from decaying? This should be worth a laugh.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you don't think not knowing how long a process has been
going on matters, making what I said some how a misleading
analogy. Okay, if that is what you believe, we disagree.
Kelly

That's not what I said and you know it Kelly.

We know the rate at which Carbon14 decays, we know how much it has decayed in a material we are trying to date. Therefore (with some calibration thanks to icecores and things) we can determine the age in years.

Simple?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you don't think not knowing how long a process has been
going on matters, making what I said some how a misleading
analogy. Okay, if that is what you believe, we disagree.
Kelly

I'll buy you a 'Sarcastic Sneer' font for christmas

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Tell us Kelly, how do you stop radioactive material from decaying? This should be worth a laugh.

I guess you don't follow conversations well do you? Did I at all say
anything about any process being stopped, slowed, or in any way
means or matter altered from what we see currently as far as rates
are concern?
Kelly

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
That's not what I said and you know it Kelly.

We know the rate at which Carbon14 decays, we know how much it has decayed in a material we are trying to date. Therefore (with some calibration thanks to icecores and things) we can determine the age in years.

Simple?

"That's a misleading analogy.

Radiocarbon dating does not work like that."

My analogy was only talking about how long a process was active.
If someone didn't follow what another was saying I suggest it was
you when you said I was misleading with my analogy.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess you don't follow conversations well do you? Did I at all say
anything about any process being stopped, slowed, or in any way
means or matter altered from what we see currently as far as rates
are concern?
Kelly

So you are saying that the rate hasn't stopped, slowed or changed but the rate we measure now can't be related to time in any way?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"That's a misleading analogy.

Radiocarbon dating does not work like that."

My analogy was only talking about how long a process was active.
If someone didn't follow what another was saying I suggest it was
you when you said I was misleading with my analogy.
Kelly

If a 50hr-burning candle is half gone then unless someone had cut the top section of the candle off then it has been burning for 25 hrs. It doesn't have to have burned for 25 consecutive hours, it may have been lit, extinguished, and relit an arbitrary number of times. This however does not apply to discussions about the universe. Arguments about whether the universe was made at some arbitrary, and 'recent', point in the past is for reasons I stated previously irrelevant given our current knowledge and understanding of the universe. (Dealing with the 'cut down candle option), and weather or not it might be possible to stop and start time in the universe, one has to ask that as you need time to measure the passage of time, and that stopping time would mean you have no time. From the perspective of someone inside the universe, which is everyone and everything as that is the definition of universe, the stopping and starting of time would be completely unobservable as the event would not have any time to occur in. So, again from a philosophical stand point, as there is no difference that could ever possibly be measured or experienced between a universes where time stops and starts, and one where it doesn't, then the question as to which you are in becomes meaningless, they are identical.

Radioactive decay can’t be turned on or off, unlike the candle, and we have lots of bit’s of information, not only two. Using an analogy which does not follow or highlight the same rules or circumstances which apply to the situation under discussion is by nature misleading, an analogy that doesn’t replicate the situation it is applied to is not a good analogy.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If a 50hr-burning candle is half gone then unless someone had cut the top section of the candle off then it has been burning for 25 hrs. It doesn't have to have burned for 25 consecutive hours, it may have been lit, extinguished, and relit an arbitrary number of times. This however does not apply to discussions about the universe. Arguments about whether ...[text shortened]... ng, an analogy that doesn’t replicate the situation it is applied to is not a good analogy.

It seems to me you've lived your life like a candle in the wind--- never knowing who to cling to when the rain set in.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It seems to me you've lived your life like a candle in the wind--- never knowing who to cling to when the rain set in.

Oh Freaky.
I thought we'd laid this peacefully to rest.
Why bring it all back?

Originally posted by amannion
Oh Freaky.
I thought we'd laid this peacefully to rest.
Why bring it all back?

Because nonsense like this just can't be left as is: imagine the confusion of those who find this a million years from now! They might actually think we settled the issue. We can't have that now, can we?