Originally posted by scottishinnzDid you just write a responce to me without reading what you were
SO why do these independant measures give such good correlation if they are all wrong? Why aren't they all random? Why is your god trying to fool us? And, most importantly, where is your evidence that these measurements are incorrect?
responding to?
Did I tell you I had reasons to show why they were wrong, or that
they couldn't be proven wrong? If they are all wrong for the same
reason, it would seem getting the same type of results would be
the norm, just has having other tests could more then likely give
you different results, but since they are not what you want to see
you automatically reject them as bad, therefore those with different
results would not part of your sample of correct dating methods.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo basically, you have no idea why all these independant measurements give the same age. You, like most other die-hard-creationists, are going to prattle on about some non-specific reason for our measurements being wrong, without any shred of proof for your claims whatsoever. In science it is true we are selective of our data - we tend to discount erroneous data, such as when some analytical machine has been playing up or when we have a good idea that the data will be wrong and the reasons for that - however, Kelly, we do not cherry pick data as you suggest.
Did you just write a responce to me without reading what you were
responding to?
Did I tell you I had reasons to show why they were wrong, or that
they couldn't be proven wrong? If they are all wrong for the same
reason, it would seem getting the same type of results would be
the norm, just has having other tests could more then likely give
you diff ...[text shortened]... e those with different
results would not part of your sample of correct dating methods.
Kelly
[edit; no i didn't respond to you without reading your post - I just wanted you to tackle my point about multiple convergent data streams that you'd so slyly decided to ignore first time round]
Originally posted by scottishinnzI assume since you are more concern about me than what I said,
So basically, you have no idea why all these independant measurements give the same age. You, like most other die-hard-creationists, are going to prattle on about some non-specific reason for our measurements being wrong, without any shred of proof for your claims whatsoever. In science it is true we are selective of our data - we tend to discount err ...[text shortened]... about multiple convergent data streams that you'd so slyly decided to ignore first time round]
I believe the reasons I gave will be blown off, and not responded
to. DID I SAY THEY WERE WRONG? I believe you will find I
said they were faith based, which is not the same as saying they
are wrong. They must be taken on faith, they cannot be proven
wrong or right outside of another test agreeing with them.
Funny thing about data that cannot be proven wrong, if you buy
into a group of data points that agree with each other and they are
wrong, you will by default discount those that give accurate data
because you 'BELIEVE' the data that is in error.
Kelly
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI just don't like what is faith, being called a fact. If it cannot be
I'm asking KellyJay, but thanks for your answer. It's a good one, but I think it varies from what he thinks.
proven right or wrong, it isn't something we can call a fact is it
faith. That is true if it is in the past, or the present.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou simply have no understanding what science is. You keep stating that there exist some things called 'facts' and that these constitues science and everything else based on 'connecting the dots' is mere faith.
I just don't like what is faith, being called a fact. If it cannot be
proven right or wrong, it isn't something we can call a fact is it
faith. That is true if it is in the past, or the present.
Kelly
The only possible explanation for all the available dating techniques being wrong but still agreeing with each other is that time used to go faster in the past. That way we could have got through 4 billion years in a mere 1000 years. Brilliant !
Lets do a little thought experiment:
If I toss a two sided coin in the air 10,000 times in a manner which you agree is completely random. Every one of the 10,000 times it comes up heads. You are not allowed to inspect the coin and you can not tell for sure whether the heads you are seeing is the same or different sides of the coin. Is it a 'FACT' or not that both sides of the coin are heads?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe ony possible explanation...? You really must have a vast array
You simply have no understanding what science is. You keep stating that there exist some things called 'facts' and that these constitues science and everything else based on 'connecting the dots' is mere faith.
The only possible explanation for all the available dating techniques being wrong but still agreeing with each other is that time used to go fa ...[text shortened]... different sides of the coin. Is it a 'FACT' or not that both sides of the coin are heads?
of knowledge to know that! Connecting the dots is science, and it is
faith since you have to believe like you do that you have 'The only
possible explanation..." for the dots to look the way you want them
too.
Did I say "...that time used to go faster in the past" I don't think so
I believe you are confused.
Your coin experiment is a good one, and proves what? I'd believe
that both sides are heads, since I'm not allowed to inspect it, that
is as far as it can go.
You can trust something you know is true all the way up to the time
you discover it isn't.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThat doesn't answer my question. You're really bad about answering direct questions. It makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about or that you have something to hide. I'll answer yours though. No one said that the study of the past isn't science as far as I can remember.
Who said the study of the past isn't science?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYour coin experiment is a good one, and proves what? I'd believe
The ony possible explanation...? You really must have a vast array
of knowledge to know that! Connecting the dots is science, and it is
faith since you have to believe like you do that you have 'The only
possible explanation..." for the dots to look the way you want them
too.
Did I say "...that time used to go faster in the past" I don't think so
I ...[text shortened]... ust something you know is true all the way up to the time
you discover it isn't.
Kelly
that both sides are heads, since I'm not allowed to inspect it, that
is as far as it can go.
Again, you fail to answer the question. What is your problem with answering direct, simple questions? What's so hard about it? Is it a fact or not that both sides of the coin have heads on them?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou allow for only those things you want to see, not what is before
[b]Your coin experiment is a good one, and proves what? I'd believe
that both sides are heads, since I'm not allowed to inspect it, that
is as far as it can go.
Again, you fail to answer the question. What is your problem with answering direct, simple questions? What's so hard about it? Is it a fact or not that both sides of the coin have heads on them?[/b]
you. You said I didn't give a strait answer, I gave the only truthful
answer I could given those points of information I received. The
coin would not under normal circumstances land on heads even
50 times in a row let alone 10K, but that does not mean that
something other than a two headed coin was in play. Without being
able to examine the coin I said, and it is still true, that I’d believe it
to be a two headed coin. It still wouldn’t be called a fact by me it
was; I can only give my opinion on those data points I have, not
having the coin before me that I could examine, I cannot say without
a doubt that it is a two headed coin or not. You may feel completely
comfortable jumping to conclusions, like I said I don’t want to call
something a fact, unless it is.
Kelly
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAsk your question another way.
That doesn't answer my question. You're really bad about answering direct questions. It makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about or that you have something to hide. I'll answer yours though. No one said that the study of the past isn't science as far as I can remember.
Kelly