Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 220
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cadet View Post
    Rev, I like this thread. It is true that all new scientific "facts" are being based off of unproven hypothesis, if anything get's proven wrong, like the big bang, everything else goes kaput.
    I think the whole thing is about when you look into new things, don't base it off of anything.
    What is it that detectives say? "If you're looking for a suicide, that's what you'll find. If you're looking for a murder, that's what you'll find. Don't rule out anything."
    Hell, why even rule out that matter can't be created or destroyed? Do you have any idea what kind of theories would come out of that with expansion of the universe???
    Who's to say that the universe isn't just a continually ticking clock, and there's neither beginnings nor endings in this universe, and time just keeps repeating itself in phases? Maybe history keeps repeating itself every couple billion years? Maybe we've nuked ourselves countless times into oblivion?
    what if when black holes get so big, they rip a hole in the plane of space time, and shoot out in all directions due to massive amounts of anti-gravity?
    who's to say there aren't multiple dimensions, that are all touching eachother in the 4th dimension, and there's a doorway somewhere leading to them? Maybe black holes are said doorway?
    What if atoms aren't shaped the way we picture them? and they're actually some different thing all together?
    I like that detective comment.
    You know the old Sherlock Holmes quotes
    "The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."

    'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.'

    'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?'


    the problem with so many science ativities is that they get pieces of puzzles and say HEY this fits but when they get a piece that doesnt fit they won't take aprt the puzzle again to start over. and try new ways to arrange the sparse pieces.

    the more i read i'm convinced we really don't no much about the comos. it's almost like we live in 1800's on an island in the Pacific and were guessing about what the rest of the world is like by pieces of wood that have floated to shore and study of migratory birds and fish.
    or worse.

    I think we've got data about the comos but assumptions about deep history seems crazy to me. all of the so called constants are in doubt now adays.
    at the very least there's some small fluctuation and in some case large ones may be possible.

    humility from a scientific position seems to be the way to go.
    it's Fun to explore claiming all you conclusions are "fact" is hubris at this point . we just don't know enough.

    Last edited by revelarts; 07-25-2013 at 12:04 PM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The SOUTH!!!
    Posts
    2,054
    Thanks (Given)
    2141
    Thanks (Received)
    2059
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2786508

    Default

    Yes and there is also the idea that one of us aren't really here. I may be a figment of your imagination or you and everyone around me may be a remnant of my memory which I am continuing in my death where some sort of consciousness lingers on. It is wild and I do not place much stock in anything other than my faith but I'm not going to disrespectfully shoot down other ideas or the possibilities as a close minded individual of self proclaimed intellect which is nothing more than ignorance. I prefer to view and review all possibilities...and our children's education would be well served if such leadership within the educational system were to be as open minded as the liberals claim to be.
    NEVER MESS WITH AN
    IRISH/SCOTT/ITALIAN CHEROKEE!

    "A wise man is at the right hand but a fool is at the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2
    "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" Psalms 53:1

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    you might be surprised.
    After perusing icr.org I certainly would be surprised. They seem to engage in exercises of logic rather than science.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Young Earth is more reasonable?
    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    At this point I'd say as reasonable.
    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    A stretch to say the least. Lest I be tagged as "closed minded."
    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    you might be surprised.
    Radioisotopes indicate an earth that is billions of years old-- magnitudes apart from young earth estimates-- so no, young earth is not reasonable. It's the skeptics that are close-minded if they denounce radioisotope dating, not the other way around.

    as for the logic on icr.org, its fallacious. For example,
    Darwinism assumes that biological change is virtually unlimited—that, given enough time, bunnies can become belugas, and penguins can become people. http://www.icr.org/research/bio-origins/lock/
    uh..no. it doesnt say that at all-- that's a strawman. Misrepresenting another's theory in order to disprove it is, at best, disingenuous. I'm willing to entertain alternatives, but be realistic. Red shift, lithium??? This is indicative of something over than an expanding universe how, exactly?
    He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Radioisotopes indicate an earth that is billions of years old-- magnitudes apart from young earth estimates-- so no, young earth is not reasonable. It's the skeptics that are close-minded if they denounce radioisotope dating, not the other way around.

    as for the logic on icr.org, its fallacious. For example, uh..no. it doesnt say that at all-- that's a strawman. Misrepresenting another's theory in order to disprove it is, at best, disingenuous. I'm willing to entertain alternatives, but be realistic. Red shift, lithium??? This is indicative of something over than an expanding universe how, exactly?
    Did i mention ICR, did i quote their statement about Darwinism?
    If your talk-in-to-me that's a strawman. putting ideas forth as my view then saying you've knocked them down. c'mon log.
    If you looked at what i've post here you'll get an idea of where i'm coming from.

    I'll state my position flat out so there's no Confusion.
    I do believe in a fairly young earth. And i'll state flatly it's not because of the science.

    "OH No he doesn't want to know science He doesn't care what science says how can we have a real debate if it's all about "faith"!!!"

    waaait a minute there hombre.

    If you look at what i've said earlier. I don't think Science has enough data to conclusively make a clear determination of the age of the earth and NO WHERE near enough info to think about dating the Universe. or come up with a theory of "everything". Not that long ago early 1900's science thought that the milky way galaxy was THE ONLY galaxy.
    I think science sometimes assumes far to much.

    Let me ask you a question?

    You mentioned Radioisotopes. Ok fine. that's one way to get an estimate of the age of something i suppose. Is it the only way? What if you have other reliable dating methods that give far different ages. Which one do you use?
    The one that fits your theory the best of course. duh.
    That exactly what we have here. there's a lot of interesting data out there that folks have collected to try and decipher the past. And lots of extrapolations based on the favorite data points.
    WITHOUT integrating any pesky data that conflicts.

    However, as the Sherlock Holmes quotes instructs.
    Somethings can be ruled out if enough... or key... contradictory evidence is found. Which is why i reject flat out biological Macro evolution. From what i've come to understand it's flat impossible. There is no known mechanism for it to work in theory, or in experiment and it's never been seen. It's a scientific assumption. And even many mainstream scientist are scrambling trying to come up with a new theory.

    And there's not even any serious attempts of science to answer how life came from non-life.
    At least that's honest.
    no hand waving,
    "it the process of bio-genesis, can't you hear it's B-i-o-g-e-n-e-sis, THATS the mechanism...seee. we don't see it now but it HAD to happen ... because we are here therefore i'm right. Given enough time it WILL happen. If you don't believe that your a backwards religious fanatic"



    the dating question is one that i've been back and forth on in my own mind.
    At this point I think everyone's being a bit premature and assuming to much off of small data points. my reading is limited here though, so I'm open to more info but at this point I see NOTHING scientifically wrong with a young age of the earth and universe.

    There are a lot of scientist and researchers of all stripes that are tinkering with various investigations and theories that date the earth and universe as young 6000 years, to infinitely old, to the very honest, unknowable.


    i'd be glad to talk to you about it more.
    later.
    Last edited by revelarts; 07-25-2013 at 06:34 PM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    Did i mention ICR, did i quote their statement about Darwinism?
    did I only respond to you?
    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    If your talk-in-to-me that's a strawman. putting ideas forth as my view then saying you've knocked them down. c'mon log.
    again, Fj introduced icr, saying it was logical, I refuted that.
    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    If you looked at what i've post here you'll get an idea of where i'm coming from.
    I'll state my position flat out so there's no Confusion.
    I do believe in a fairly young earth. And i'll state flatly it's not because of the science.
    Clearly. Science repudiates your belief.
    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    "OH No he doesn't want to know science He doesn't care what science says how can we have a real debate if it's all about "faith"!!!"

    waaait a minute there hombre.
    Wait a minute yourself there hombre; I didn't say that.
    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    If you look at what i've said earlier. I don't think Science has enough data to conclusively make a clear determination of the age of the earth and NO WHERE near enough info to think about dating the Universe.
    Young earth theories place the age of earth 6 magnitudes apart from scientific theories. It's an irreconcilable difference. So I don't know what you consider a "clear determination", but the two are worlds apart. If you're to take the position that the earth is 10000 years old, then (im assuming you are aware of dating practices) you've already rejected scientific evidence to the contrary based on error tolerances and any further estimates on the age of the universe, that are likely less precise, would likely be dismissed as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    or come up with a theory of "everything".
    That's exactly what creationists present, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    Not that long ago early 1900's science thought that the milky way galaxy was THE ONLY galaxy.
    I think science sometimes assumes far to much.
    Testable assumptions, ie hypotheses, are the foundation of science. Science confirms these assumptions by failing to disprove a hypothesis. Take note: scientists did disprove the lone galaxy assumption. To say science assumes too much is the same as saying that sometimes faith believes far too much--Indeed--Some more than others.

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    Let me ask you a question?
    Ok.
    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    You mentioned Radioisotopes. Ok fine. that's one way to get an estimate of the age of something i suppose. Is it the only way? What if you have other reliable dating methods that give far different ages. Which one do you use
    The one that fits your theory the best of course. duh.
    First off, was that supposed to be a rhetorical question? (As that was) then dont answer it for me. Of course certain assumptions come into play. If I was dating the age of a package of meat in my fridge, I'd look at the packing date. I wouldn't look for a born on date in an archaeological discovery in ancient Greece. I would choose the tool of measurement that best fits the scale of what I'm trying to measure based on certain assumptions. I wouldn't use radioisotopes to measure the age of the leftovers in my fridge. If I was going to measure the age of a tree, I could use uranium-lead radiometric dating and when I get nearly identical results from a tree I know is ten years-old with one that is in an old growth forest that stands hundreds of feet tall, I'd pursue other dating methods. Like, maybe tree rings or carbon-14 radiometric dating. I wouldn't stop and say, they're the same age--it's scientific fact! Now if I found a petrified stump of a tree, I wouldn't count the rings to determine how long ago that tree lived. I'd have to come up with a different tool.

    Let me ask you a question: a petrified log is a rock, ie part of the earth, but it looks just like a tree; was it actually a tree created on day 3 that somehow went back in time to become a rock created on day 1--or-- is it just a tree-like rock?

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    That exactly what we have here. there's a lot of interesting data out there that folks have collected to try and decipher the past. And lots of extrapolations based on the favorite data points.
    WITHOUT integrating any pesky data that conflicts.
    Spurious data gets thrown out sometimes. but what you need to reconcile is 6 magnitutdes of difference; thats like the difference between $1 in your pocket and $1,000,000. If you were to reconcile $1 missing out of $1,000,000, that's easy to dismiss as error; the other way around, there's a gross error that can't be reconciled.

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    However, as the Sherlock Holmes quotes instructs.
    Somethings can be ruled out if enough... or key... contradictory evidence is found. Which is why i reject flat out biological Macro evolution.
    So, based on the sage advice from a fictional character from a book, you reject mainstream scientific theory. Is there a reason why you didn't post this thread in the conspiracy theory forum, because just having the word science in the title does not a category qualify?

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    From what i've come to understand it's flat impossible. There is no known mechanism for it to work in theory, or in experiment and it's never been seen. It's a scientific assumption. And even many mainstream scientist are scrambling trying to come up with a new theory.
    Hold up. You just quoted Holmes as instructing us that upon finding key contradictory evidence a theory is rejected; yet here you proffer lack of evidence as sufficient to reject a theory. logic: fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    And there's not even any serious attempts of science to answer how life came from non-life.
    At least that's honest.
    no hand waving,
    "it the process of bio-genesis, can't you hear it's B-i-o-g-e-n-e-sis, THATS the mechanism...seee. we don't see it now but it HAD to happen ... because we are here therefore i'm right. Given enough time it WILL happen. If you don't believe that your a backwards religious fanatic"
    is your entire post rhetoric-- Should I just stop responding?
    First off, the process is abiogenesis. Google: miller-Urey experiment. They produced amino acids from inorganic chemicals. You seem quite contrite in rejecting a theory based on the fact that what could have taken billions of years hasn't happened over the course of a few generations of research. fine. have it your way. Havent seen everything created in 6 days; nor revelations come to pass; so the bible is to be rejected, wholly.

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    the dating question is one that i've been back and forth on in my own mind.
    At this point I think everyone's being a bit premature and assuming to much off of small data points. my reading is limited here though, so I'm open to more info but at this point I see NOTHING scientifically wrong with a young age of the earth and universe.
    Define young. The mainstream young earth crowd place the age between 10000 and 6000 years old. If you're debating the extant reaches of the universe being relatively unknown--no doubt. If you're talking about the intracacies of subatomic particles and quantum relations with the universe-- that's cutting edge science-- of course there's room for doubt. But if you're talking about uranium decay and its usefulness in dating rocks-- that's old news-- it's been tested, a lot, and its a solid assumption from which to base the age of earth. 3000 years ago man didn't have the knowledge to determine such, a master creator knocking it out in six days may have made sense, then, but we've learned otherwise since-- that's the evolution of man.

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    There are a lot of scientist and researchers of all stripes that are tinkering with various investigations and theories that date the earth and universe as young 6000 years, to infinitely old, to the very honest, unknowable.
    unknowable? Why do we need to know? maybe the earth was made 6000 years ago and it happened to be created with rocks of various degrees of decomposition-- it's possible-- but then, why 6000 years? Why not 150 years old? Or last month? Maybe the world hasn't been created at all and its all just an expanse of energy that we interpret here and now as reality but, actually, it's just a continuum wherein time is infinite and we seek to measure it merely for our own pleasure of believing that our very existence is anything but a pittance?


    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    i'd be glad to talk to you about it more.
    later.
    Maybe we'll know more...later.
    Last edited by logroller; 07-26-2013 at 07:28 AM.
    He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    again, Fj introduced icr, saying it was logical, I refuted that.
    Actually rs did... and I didn't say it was good logic.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    i'll be bach.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    I don't have time to do this the way i wanted in a few good chunks.

    but lets start with ONE item.
    not an end all item but an item to get the ball rolling.

    radioisotopes:
    you say and it's been taught that radioactive decay rates are consent, nothing really interferes with them, and therefore they are completely reliable.
    So going backwards all our dates are right .
    If that's true it's hard to argue with, however is it true.

    not to long ago a few scientist at Purdue discovered that Solar flares change the decay rates. or that the Sun does in fact in some mysterious way change decay rates.
    This was unknown before. and the process is not understood now. but it's been confirmed.

    So it looks like the constant is NOT really consent. that there are forces that can and do effect the rate.

    http://phys.org/news201795438.html

    ....Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the cesium might be used to generate random numbers.)
    As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates - odd for supposed physical constants.

    Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.
    Was this fluctuation real, or was it merely a glitch in the equipment used to measure the decay, induced by the change of seasons, with the accompanying changes in temperature and humidity?
    "Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Sturrock said.
    The sun speaks
    On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.
    If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.
    The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana - meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?...

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news201795438.html#jCp
    so the consent is not consent. who'd a thunk it?

    SO that makes the rate argument a bit less sacred.

    the next questions that should be asked are OK by how much. And can anyone guess how much effect various solar flares or sun activity changes the rate. and what of the huge flares in the past.... THAT WE KNOW OF.. would the change be even more drastic, probably? What changes in the suns output has occurred in the past millions years? Do we even have a clue? Do we assume none?

    then you have to ask the next question. what else .. that we don't know of could possible effect the rate.
    we can't assume that the rates been changed but we can't assume that nothing in the claimed millions of years hasn't. if we are being objective seems to me.
    you can say it's unlikely, sure. but not impossible.

    http://io9.com/5619954/the-sun-is-ch...s-of-chemistry
    Last edited by revelarts; 07-26-2013 at 02:46 PM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    I don't have time to do this the way i wanted in a few good chunks.


    but lets start with ONE item.
    not an end all item but an item to get the ball rolling.


    radioisotopes:
    you say and it's been taught that radioactive decay rates are consent, nothing really interferes with them, and therefore they are completely reliable.
    So going backwards all our dates are right .
    If that's true it's hard to argue with, however is it true.


    not to long ago a few scientist at Purdue discovered that Solar flares change the decay rates. or that the Sun does in fact in some mysterious way change decay rates.
    This was unknown before. and the process is not understood now. but it's been confirmed.


    So it looks like the constant is NOT really consent. that there are forces that can and do effect the rate.


    http://phys.org/news201795438.html






    so the consent is not consent. who'd a thunk it?


    SO that makes the rate argument a bit less sacred.


    the next questions that should be asked are OK by how much. And can anyone guess how much effect various solar flares or sun activity changes the rate. and what of the huge flares in the past.... THAT WE KNOW OF.. would the change be even more drastic, probably? What changes in the suns output has occurred in the past millions years? Do we even have a clue? Do we assume none?


    then you have to ask the next question. what else .. that we don't know of could possible effect the rate.
    we can't assume that the rates been changed but we can't assume that nothing in the claimed millions of years hasn't. if we are being objective seems to me.
    you can say it's unlikely, sure. but not impossible.


    http://io9.com/5619954/the-sun-is-ch...s-of-chemistry

    interesting. Gamma ray irradiation or neutrino or some other unknown particle could affect decay....Slightly. take note: the findings indicate slight changes, not major ones, and not even upon the isotopes that are used in dating the earth, uranium/lead, strongtium/cesium; and sure, over the course of millions, if not billions of years, other things could occur that we have no idea about. Other research failed to duplicate the findings
    The decay rate of three different radioactive sources 40K, 137Cs and natTh has been measured with NaI and Ge detectors. Data have been analyzed to search for possible variations in coincidence with the two strongest solar flares of the years 2011 and 2012. No significant deviations from standard expectation have been observed, with a few 10-4 sensitivity. As a consequence, we could not find any effect like that recently reported by Jenkins and Fischbach: a few per mil decrease in the decay rate of 54Mn during solar flares in December 2006.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0970


    I'm willing to concede the age could longer or lesser, but the findings were fractions of percent change (few per mil. Even if I grant a magnified 10% change= an entire magnitude, that hardly closes the gap on 6 magnitudes rev. Furthermore, this posit of things happenin over such a huge timescale (millions of years) that we have no idea exactky what coukd affect the change, it still leaves your 10000 year age untenable.
    He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99

  11. #26
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Studying my Lab Rat....
    Posts
    3,479
    Thanks (Given)
    154
    Thanks (Received)
    1641
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    14
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4167050

    Default

    Dogma is Hilarious

    You know, the last time I was in Germany and saw a man standing above everybody else, we ended up disagreeing.

    Captain America

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    interesting. Gamma ray irradiation or neutrino or some other unknown particle could affect decay....Slightly. take note: the findings indicate slight changes, not major ones, and not even upon the isotopes that are used in dating the earth, uranium/lead, strongtium/cesium; and sure, over the course of millions, if not billions of years, other things could occur that we have no idea about. Other research failed to duplicate the findings http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0970


    I'm willing to concede the age could longer or lesser, but the findings were fractions of percent change (few per mil. Even if I grant a magnified 10% change= an entire magnitude, that hardly closes the gap on 6 magnitudes rev. Furthermore, this posit of things happenin over such a huge timescale (millions of years) that we have no idea exactky what coukd affect the change, it still leaves your 10000 year age untenable.
    Ok,
    so at this point you , gracely i might add, concede that the rate can change, it is NOT a fixed consent as once BELIEVED.

    So you'll assume that it's small variation. As the CURRENT evidence suggest. OK, But i hope you'll note that objectively, to hang ALL of the marbles there is an assumption.
    What we KNOW is from observation of decay rates that have been done for less than 90 years. To extrapolate it back for Millions of years is an assumption from what we've seen so far. It may be a good one, the best we can do at the moment. But it is just that in the final OBJECTIVE sense.
    It's not hard observable science.
    Science makes assumptions in various points all the time, no problem.
    I just want to us to acknowledge them as we go along.
    The mainstream folks often don't acknowledge they pile assumption on assumption to get where they end up.

    I want to get back to the dating methods in a minute
    .But i want to make an analogy here.
    I tried to say this a previous post log and but you replied in a way that,.. i get what your saying.. but i don't think you Caught the way i was framing it.

    this Analogy is not perfect and but I hope it makes my point.
    If you ever watch the show Fringe you may have seen this.

    Ok
    3 investigators walked in on this scene. what COULD you conclude?

    a hospital.
    an man lies dead on the floor. he has grey hair wrinkled skin, long fingernails, sunken features.
    the 1st investigator says this man probably is 65 to 80 years old, possible heart attack I'll need to look closer.

    the 2nd investigator says wait a minute what's all of this fluid around him it's not blood, look its, it's Amniotic fluid. And what's this cord on his belly button, look there's a Placental on his leg, and the sign in the hall here says "maturity". He's found just outside the room with a dead mother who's DNA matches the placenta's.
    I say he's really very very young.

    1st investigator your a pitiful crazy religious nut case, your investigation is NOT science. It stupid, did you leave your brains at the doughnut shop? It's obvious that he's OLD and died of old age all the other stuff can be explained, like he walked to the maternity ward Jeez!! And none of that has ANY real bearing on our REAL peer reviewed investigation in to this death.

    3rd investigator
    why not look at all the evidence. Obviously we've got a unique case here. something we've never seen before and we are learning more about it the more we investigate.
    How about we hold off any final scientific judgments until more evidence is in? Follow the trail where it lead rather than fit the facts.

    the Analogy breaks at a couple of places but the main one for me is that all of the investigators KNOW what an old man looks like but we do not know what an OLD earth looks like or and OLD Universe.
    We have NO former observational evidence to compare it to. we may as well be examining and Alien life form made of stone trying to determine if it's old or young. we have no good point of reference.

    For science I like the 3rd investigators approach.
    As I said I think the Young earth POV is JUST as Good as the Billions of years folks.
    Neither one seem to be able to clear the deck of every piece of evidence, And the evidence is changing all the time, what precious little of it there is to try to determine definitively something in the distant past that cannot be observed.

    It people want to build there life on the latest ideas from reli.. i mean science on our origins go ahead, just be ready to change up every 100 years or less.
    Last edited by revelarts; 07-27-2013 at 04:00 PM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Think Solyndra and you have my city. Not far from San Jose and SE of San Francisco.
    Posts
    6,090
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Age of Earth

    3rd investigator
    why not look at all the evidence. Obviously we've got a unique case here. something we've never seen before and we are learning more about it the more we investigate.
    How about we hold off any final scientific judgments until more evidence is in? Follow the trail where it lead rather than fit the facts.

    the Analogy breaks at a couple of places but the main one for me is that all of the investigators KNOW what an old man looks like but we do not know what an OLD earth looks like or and OLD Universe.
    We have NO former observational evidence to compare it to. we may as well be examining and Alien life form made of stone trying to determine if it's old or young. we have no good point of reference.

    For science I like the 3rd investigators approach.
    As I said I think the Young earth POV is JUST as Good as the Billions of years folks.
    Neither one seem to be able to clear the deck of every piece of evidence, And the evidence is changing all the time, what precious little of it there is to try to determine definitively something in the distant past that cannot be observed.
    Revelarts, apparently you believe that the age of Earth is merely 10,000 years or less.

    Have you done any study of geology at all? Have you visited the Grand Canyon where like rings in a tree, you can see earth's age on display in the layers of deposits in the Canyon?

    Then we have the Sequoia Giants. Some standing have been on Earth much of your admitted age of earth.

    I think the way the Bible is written is more to blame than trying to quote it in any fashion to dispute science.

    A good book to read is called the Science of God and the author makes a good case to support the estimated age of Earth at 4.3 billion years or so. And not discount that God created the universe which changes daily. I have in my hand from the rim of the Grand Canyon Kaibob Limestone from the 248 to 286 million year era.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    4,350
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1247453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert A Whit View Post
    Revelarts, apparently you believe that the age of Earth is merely 10,000 years or less.

    Have you done any study of geology at all? Have you visited the Grand Canyon where like rings in a tree, you can see earth's age on display in the layers of deposits in the Canyon?

    Then we have the Sequoia Giants. Some standing have been on Earth much of your admitted age of earth.

    I think the way the Bible is written is more to blame than trying to quote it in any fashion to dispute science.

    A good book to read is called the Science of God and the author makes a good case to support the estimated age of Earth at 4.3 billion years or so. And not discount that God created the universe which changes daily. I have in my hand from the rim of the Grand Canyon Kaibob Limestone from the 248 to 286 million year era.
    Rev mentioned 6,000 years in one post. The oldest Sequoia is General Sherman, which is estimated at 2,300–2,700 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Sherman_%28tree%29 That's less than half the 6,000 years Rev mentioned. Hardly 'Much'.

    And it's Kaibab, not Kaibob.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,251
    Thanks (Given)
    7207
    Thanks (Received)
    11746
    Likes (Given)
    1048
    Likes (Received)
    1381
    Piss Off (Given)
    4
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert A Whit View Post
    Revelarts, apparently you believe that the age of Earth is merely 10,000 years or less.

    Have you done any study of geology at all? Have you visited the Grand Canyon where like rings in a tree, you can see earth's age on display in the layers of deposits in the Canyon?

    Then we have the Sequoia Giants. Some standing have been on Earth much of your admitted age of earth.

    I think the way the Bible is written is more to blame than trying to quote it in any fashion to dispute science.

    A good book to read is called the Science of God and the author makes a good case to support the estimated age of Earth at 4.3 billion years or so. And not discount that God created the universe which changes daily. I have in my hand from the rim of the Grand Canyon Kaibob Limestone from the 248 to 286 million year era.

    Robert. Why does it matter what anyone, other than you believes?

    Unless you were here to witness the birth of this planet.

    You have no credibility to use in convincing anyone, anything.
    I love to make Liberals Cry, and Whine.
    So, this is for them.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums