Here's a nice young couple that have just had their thinking re-calibrated after experiencing some marital difficulties.
"More field-service, better meeting attendance, no independent thinking"
Ahhhh, all better now.
Flood? World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden
by skyking 48 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
-
FreeWilly
I'm noticing a pattern Perry. Throw any criticism or doubts that threaten my cherished belief then obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. It has all the hallmarks of a weak arguement.
Since you're so familiar with the University you lifted your desperate quote from..... Why don't you merely write any one of the physics professors there and ask them if your understanding of that quote - namely that modern radiocarbon dating methods' "basic assumption is that the earth today is the same as it has always been" - is correct?
What do you think they will say if you were to ask that question Perry?
Let's try this again.... Perry, are you claiming that modern Radiocarbon dating methods assume a constant rate of CO2 in Earths historic atmosphere? Yes, No and Why?
-
inrainbows
Perry
Of course I don't, that's why I asked to explain it since the statement seems to be in conflict with the statement from the University of Georgia above.
Well, why not read some more? You see, in all your discussions on the subject you come over as a presuppositionalist; someone who will do anything to avoid accepting scientific evidence if it disagrees with a book that is only acceptable as the absolute 'truth' if you presuppose it is.
So, why I or anyone else should pander to you by discussing a subject you have simply not bothered to research properly because you've already decided it is wrong I don't know.
What you have here is a failure that you will make time and time again doing what you do; looking for stuff that seems to support your argument without any underlying knowledge or in-depth examination.
For example, if you're sat in a basic Chemistry class at some point you will be taught there are three states of matter. This is rubbish. There are five states of matter. However, the teacher is not lying to you. They are simplifying the subject to make it easier to teach and understand.
You are not likely to encounter plasma or Bose-Einstein condensates on a regular basis or have to deal with them in basic chemistry, so it doesn;t really matter. If you study chemistry at a higher level then you learn the details.
Look here;
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/atoms/states.html
Three states of matter!
I personally loathe this, and have attracted annoyed stares from lecturers quite a few times in my academic career by pointing out these educational simplifications in class. I'm a cocky bastard in lectures as well as online. Some educators or resources phrase things better by saying 'main states of matter' or 'normal states of matter'. But anyone doing more than the barest minimum of research will find out that it is no secret thre are five states of matter.
Now, if you did more than the barest minimum of research you'd find out all the details of C14 dating and how it is calibrated. But your objective is NOT a real understanding of it. All you want are what you think are lose threads you can pick at so you can retain your beliefs and posture as though this was in anyway crediblle. You assume there is disagreement when all there is is a simple explanation and a complicated one.
That answers question 1.
2. Do you think that the premises of the U of G and the other sources than I'm sure you'll find that disagree would sometimes produce a different result from each other in their C 14 tests?
Rephrase this in grammatical English. Once it is a understandable sentence I think you'll find the above explains it.
3. For the sources that claim that calibration is needed, do you think that their preconceived notions of age affect the calibration process?
No. If you did proper research so would understand this, but I doubt you are genuine in your attempt to understand this. If you try and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.
4. Why do C14 labs ask the ones submitting samples to tell them the "expected" age?
If you did proper research you would know this. Instead you use your superficial knowleedge (and probably cribbing from some Creationist site) to beg the question and create the impression of deceit. If you try to find out why and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.
5. Can you explain the 'science" behind the calibration process?
Yes. If you did proper research so could you but I doubt you are genuine in your attempt to understand this. If you try and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.
6. Do you think that the scientists in charge of the soft tissue in the dinosaur bones in the video clip I presented above, would ever in a "million years" allow that soft tissue to be C14 dated in blind tests? Or, would hell freeze over first?
Here you beg the question again. You probably know that C14 only works back to 50,000 bp. You also probably know that the samples were recovered from inside bones that are dated to around 65 million years from the rock they were discovered in. Thus your question is idiotic.
You probably don't know the scientist who discovered them has condemed attempts by YEC's et.al. to use this to back their supersticious beliefs.
You probably don't know that rather than disproving evolution or dating techniques, all this is is a discovery that scientists have something else to understand, which they have immediately set about doing. At the end of the day it means the understanding of fossilisation was wrong, not that T-Rex was around a few tens-of-thousands of years ago.
Instead you try to make it look like they would avoid making a (pointless) test on something that is undatable by C14 in order to deceive people.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html
Again, I'm not a scientist. I have learned to question those who claim to have some sort of title deed to truth apart from God's Word though.
See? You have no proof that God's word is the truth but assume it is. How scientific you are NOT.
-
funkyderek
Perry:
How old do you think the tree is, and why?
-
peacefulpete
Copernic...Here's the author of the silliness refuted in the link you provided: Kent Hovind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
Perry
Well, why not read some more?
Why don't you read some more? Or less? Or go fishing? ...............Relevance?
You see, in all your discussions on the subject you come over as a presuppositionalist;
You come over as .... well, here's your own words:
I'm a cocky bastard in lectures as well as online.
How we come over really is irrelevant isn't it? ...At least as it pertains to the subject under discussion
someone who will do anything to avoid accepting scientific evidence if it disagrees with a book that is only acceptable as the absolute 'truth' if you presuppose it is.
Inrainbows, some people take the tack to assume God is wrong first and then go on to learn about one thing or another. Christians take the opposite route; they assume God is right first and then go on to learn one thing or another. I have "learned" to do this over a pretty long period of time. It doesn't mean that I don't accept clear evidence of things that on first glance appears to be contrary to a literal reading of God's word. Notwithstanding, I look for a confirmation of a literal meaning first, then look for other explanations later. This of course is total nonsense to those who believe that God doesn't exist.... a complete waste of time. But logically, what else are people to do that know that they have irrefutable proof of God's existence? It is two totally incompatible worldviews.... that's all there is to it. Have you ever taken book that had a "science" label on it as truth first and then test it for yourself later?
Have you sumbitted blind C-14 tests for dating yourself....personally? If not, how can you know?
So, why I or anyone else should pander to you by discussing a subject you have simply not bothered to research properly because you've already decided it is wrong I don't know.
This isn't my thread. It is a thread from someone who has a view that is incompatible with a literal reading of scripture. My posts obviously point out seeming inconsistencies with that view. If you have something to say in favor of a different view.... fine. Let's hear it. It is apparent that many atheists are interested in the one asking the questions rather than the questions and the various answers those questions might prompt.
What you have here is a failure that you will make time and time again doing what you do; looking for stuff that seems to support your argument without any underlying knowledge or in-depth examination.
Perhaps.
For example, if you're sat in a basic Chemistry class at some point you will be taught there are three states of matter. This is rubbish. There are five states of matter. However, the teacher is not lying to you.
They are simplifying the subject to make it easier to teach and understand.
Ok, I'm with you. Go on.
You are not likely to encounter plasma or Bose-Einstein condensates on a regular basis or have to deal with them in basic chemistry, so it doesn;t really matter. If you study chemistry at a higher level then you learn the details.
So your reasoning seems to say that unless a person, themself has personal knowledge, they really can't rely on any one else; or at least the sources must be discounted to one degree or another. Sounds reasonable.
Has it ever occured to you that this is the identical experience of born again Christians? They have personal knowledge of God and discount all other sources to one degree or another. It sounds like we are in agreement with this most basic process for determining truth.
Look here;
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/atoms/states.html
Three states of matter!
I personally loathe this, and have attracted annoyed stares from lecturers quite a few times in my academic career by pointing out these educational simplifications in class. I'm a cocky bastard in lectures as well as online. Some educators or resources phrase things better by saying 'main states of matter' or 'normal states of matter'. But anyone doing more than the barest minimum of research will find out that it is no secret thre are five states of matter.
Impressive. You are undoubtedly a freshman year chemistry teachers' nightmare.
Now, if you did more than the barest minimum of research you'd find out all the details of C14 dating and how it is calibrated. But your objective is NOT a real understanding of it. All you want are what you think are lose threads you can pick at so you can retain your beliefs and posture as though this was in anyway crediblle. You assume there is disagreement when all there is is a simple explanation and a complicated one.
Do you think it was possible for God to give both simple explanations and complicated ones?
That answers question 1.
So, the University of Georgia is technically wrong and "other" sources are right. Thanks for clearing that up. I will fire off an email to the University of Georgia and ask for a clarification.
2. Do you think that the premises of the U of G, and the other sources than I'm sure you'll find that disagree, would sometimes produce a different result from each other in their C 14 tests?
Rephrase this in grammatical English. Once it is a understandable sentence I think you'll find the above explains it.
Yes, you are right. I added two commas and it makes much more sense. Of course what do you think that this sentence would take to repair it? You wrote this above:
For example, if you're sat in a basic Chemistry class at some point
Isn't this kind of scrutiny rather a waste of valuable time in discussions? You could have made the only point that you've made thus far in just a few short words had you chose to lose the verbosity. But then again you wouldn't be able to declare yourself "a cocky bastard". I'm curious, why is being this important to you?
Anyway, for point # 2, you seem to be saying that there are no varying premises with regards to testing labs and therefore the question shouldn't even be asked. That's a premise that I have no way of knowing whether is true or not unless I test all the labs..... or at least a few in blind tests. Have you ever conducted blind, or even better, double blind dating tests with different dating labs? If all the premises are the same, as well as all the samples, as well as the procedures, the dates ought to come out the same right?
-
Galileo
Again, I'm not a scientist.
You're not? Wow! I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! You're amazing grasp of scientific theories led me to believe you were a tenured science professor!
Honestly, with your admitted (and painfully obvious) lack of even basic scientific knowledge, I wonder about your arrogance in arguing vehemently about something you know virtually nothing about. It seems the only one that thinks you are making any sort of point is you yourself. Honestly, you should be embarrased to be advancing these arguments from ignorance, and if you understood the subjects you are speaking of, you would be.
-
Perry
3. For the sources that claim that calibration is needed, do you think that their preconceived notions of age affect the calibration process?
No. If you did proper research so would understand this, but I doubt you are genuine in your attempt to understand this. If you try and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.
Blind tests needed here again.
4. Why do C14 labs ask the ones submitting samples to tell them the "expected" age?
If you did proper research you would know this. Instead you use your superficial knowleedge (and probably cribbing from some Creationist site) to beg the question and create the impression of deceit. If you try to find out why and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.
Why don't you expalin it, just a few words would do.
5. Can you explain the 'science" behind the calibration process?
Yes. If you did proper research so could you but I doubt you are genuine in your attempt to understand this. If you try and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.
Can' just give a "simple" answer .....
6. Do you think that the scientists in charge of the soft tissue in the dinosaur bones in the video clip I presented above, would ever in a "million years" allow that soft tissue to be C14 dated in blind tests? Or, would hell freeze over first?
Here you beg the question again. You probably know that C14 only works back to 50,000 bp. You also probably know that the samples were recovered from inside bones that are dated to around 65 million years from the rock they were discovered in. Thus your question is idiotic.
Unless, you believe God literally first and then look for an alternate explanation after that. Then, the question is perfectly logical. Stretchy soft tissue, blood cells, fractional hemeglobin, proteins from a 68 million year old bone? I'm sure you also know that that the bones stank like rotting flesh. They stank like putrid decomposing biological material like MANY big dinosaur bones do when they are cracked open. But, you knew this. Whole mountain ranges can rise and fall in 68 million years.
You probably don't know the scientist who discovered them has condemed attempts by YEC's et.al. to use this to back their supersticious beliefs.
Yes I do. Have you ever seen the extent that a single mom will go to to keep her job and support her children? It is quite amazing. She ain't stupid. She'd just be another feature on Ben Stein's movie.
At the end of the day it means the understanding of fossilisation was wrong
I'll say. But, may I point out the the word "fossil" will need revising as well to make it fit.
Instead you try to make it look like they would avoid making a (pointless) test on something that is undatable by C14 in order to deceive people.
Well, why would they perform a test that was out of harmony with their wordview? To get to the truth that's why. That's what scientists are suposed to do. Given the absolute ENORMITY and "UNIQUENESS" of this find, you'd think that a test would be warranted. Read your Dawkins for heavens sakes!
Again, I'm not a scientist. I have learned to question those who claim to have some sort of title deed to truth apart from God's Word though.
See? You have no proof that God's word is the truth but assume it is. How scientific you are NOT.
The truth of God's word was never in question here. Did you think that it was? I'm sorry. You misunderstood. So far all you have suggested is that the statements on the website of the University of Georgia may be technically false because they are deliberately dumbed down for students. Of course deception could be another reason. I'll check it out. Thanks for making that one point.
In the future, can you abbreviate your point?
-
inkling
You're not? Wow! I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! You're amazing grasp of scientific theories led me to believe you were a tenured science professor!
Honestly, with your admitted (and painfully obvious) lack of even basic scientific knowledge, I wonder about your arrogance in arguing vehemently about something you know virtually nothing about. It seems the only one that thinks you are making any sort of point is you yourself. Honestly, you should be embarrased to be advancing these arguments from ignorance...
Wow... Next time tell us what you REALLY think
Seriously though, I don't disagree with you, but I have a feeling that the only thing that
kind of articulate acidity accomplishes it to make us feel happily vented. Scorn, though
perhaps justified, often only serves to cement a believer's fundamentalism.On the other hand, it is also why I am such a fan of funkyderek and the like.
[inkling]