Methods Of Dating Rock & Fossils

[sandwiches]

But more topically here, the radioactive decay we know and see now is a feature of this present state. Therefore, to be clear, it cannot be credited with all the parent or daughter material we see now. Therefore no dates are possible. Not for the deep past.

You've been invited several times to present your evidence that the universe was different in the past and you've yet to deliver more than hot air. Keep trying, though.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You've been invited several times to present your evidence that the universe was different in the past and you've yet to deliver more than hot air. Keep trying, though.

Think of it this way, Sandwiches: after enough time we will have moved into even NEWER time and stuff Dad has been asked to do in the "distant past" (over and over and over and over and over again) will be rendered moot as well as the laws of physics change (and presumably logic as well).

The thing I love about Dad's stance is it is such old hat Philosophy 101 stuff yet Dad doesn't seem to quite "get" that invoking Humes "Problem of Induction" as well as the extremes of empiricism will effectively destroy his ability to understand the past.

If "our" points about the distant past cannot carry value, then his are equally open to the same critique!

It's a type of EPISTEMOLOGICAL ATOMIC BOMB. The person using it can't even escape the damage to the debate.

But Dad, like Keith Richards and cockroaches, keeps motoring on despite the empirical blast radius hell-scape this takes the argument into.

 

[dad]

You've been invited several times to present your evidence that the universe was different in the past and you've yet to deliver more than hot air. Keep trying, though.

I don't know how it is. Now all you need to do is admit neither does science. If not, you have a problem. If so, fine, God's word is the best evidenced document on earth and has some thing to say that are relative.

 

[dad]

...Dad doesn't seem to quite "get" that invoking Humes "Problem of Induction" as well as the extremes of empiricism will effectively destroy his ability to understand the past.

You don't get it. Long as it destroys yours, it is a win win situation. I can use God's, thanks.

If "our" points about the distant past cannot carry value, then his are equally open to the same critique!

Right, and God is the last man standing.

It's a type of EPISTEMOLOGICAL ATOMIC BOMB. The person using it can't even escape the damage to the debate.

Where the objective of the war is to cast down stuff that exalts itself against God, it is the weapon of choice.

But Dad, like Keith Richards and cockroaches, keeps motoring on despite the empirical blast radius hell-scape this takes the argument into.

I do not follow so called science to perdition and doom. So I can relax. Those that are joined at the hip to it might be careful though.....get yourself free...fast!

 

[dad]

Here's the "firmament"
File:Flammarion.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Except man can't get to the far side of it to peek into heaven. However windows to that far side can and have been opened to earth, as in the flood. Science can't even get out of the flippin solar system!!!

 

[thaumaturgy]

You don't get it. Long as it destroys yours, it is a win win situation. I can use God's, thanks.

Can you? Really?

Because I would have thought God would have given his adherents at least an intro course to logic.

Right, and God is the last man standing.

And you're not God, are you?

Where the objective of the war is to cast down stuff that exalts itself against God, it is the weapon of choice.

And when you destroy logic you are left with nothing. Your "God" makes no sense either. And what's the point of worshiping something that doesn't even make sense to you? Does God want automatons who blindly bow and pray without any understanding?

If that's the case then fine. He should have made puppets.

I do not follow so called science to perdition and doom.

No one is asking you to. But by the same token it doesn't mean your failed logic and philosophical ignorance equate to a viable critique of science.

Just walk away from the science table. If you don't like it you don't have to have anything to do with it.

If science threatens your immortal soul then just walk away.

If someone looks at your holy book and says "Hey this doesn't quite match up with what we see around us" and that threatens your faith no one in their right mind would require you to take that risk.

Those that are joined at the hip to it might be careful though.....get yourself free...fast!

I don't ask you to give up your religion, why would you ask me to give up my science?

Are you better than me?

Judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[dad]

Can you? Really?

Because I would have thought God would have given his adherents at least an intro course to logic.

He requires belief. Without it, your logic is fatally flawed. And yes, there are some clues about space in the bible.

And when you destroy logic you are left with nothing. Your "God" makes no sense either. And what's the point of worshiping something that doesn't even make sense to you? Does God want automatons who blindly bow and pray without any understanding?

If that's the case then fine. He should have made puppets.

Logic is taking God's word for what man doesn't know. Logic is not listening to the lies of the serpent, like Eve did. True logic is higher than the mind of man.

No one is asking you to. But by the same token it doesn't mean your failed logic and philosophical ignorance equate to a viable critique of science.

Science is what it is. It ain't what it ain't. It deals only in the physical, and the here and now state. In the big picture, that is such a little amount of the picture, that it doesn't much matter.

Just walk away from the science table. If you don't like it you don't have to have anything to do with it.

It doesn't have anything to do with creation, or the future or far past, or spiritual. I have to be careful not to step on it, when dancing for glee!

If science threatens your immortal soul then just walk away.

It no more threatens me than an ant. But the lies of the serpent masked as science have gotten away with too much. Some kids might appreciate being free from the kool aid.

If someone looks at your holy book and says "Hey this doesn't quite match up with what we see around us" and that threatens your faith no one in their right mind would require you to take that risk.

No, that would just show that they are half blind and not too bright, and misinformed.



I don't ask you to give up your religion, why would you ask me to give up my science?

Are you better than me?

Judge not lest ye be judged.[/quote]

 

[thaumaturgy]

Logic is taking God's word for what man doesn't know.

I'd ask you for a reference that says that anywhere in any description of "Logic" but I know you wouldn't respond with anything that even remotely resembled "thought" or "consideration of the point".

Logic is not listening to the lies of the serpent, like Eve did.

Well, obviously Eve is one of the world's first geologists and we often reference her when doing our science.

Yup, evil to the core are we.

True logic is higher than the mind of man.

"True logic"? Sounds like a "True Scotsman". Well if it's above the mind of man how would you know anything about it?

Science is what it is. It ain't what it ain't.

Wow. That's soooo deep!

I have to be careful not to step on it, when dancing for glee!

And when your dancing results in painful joints you know where to come, dontcha? The ol' aspirin bottle. Too bad science works its nasty way in there when it is needed isn't it?

It no more threatens me than an ant.

Meet the Fire Ant:

Live for a while in the South and tell me what threatens you.

But the lies of the serpent masked as science

Oh we don't even mask it anymore. We usually start science classes out with an acknowledgement to all that is evil and dark. Then we put on our magical robes of evil and cast magical incantations. Only then do we bother with collecting data and doing statisitcs.

have gotten away with too much.

Yeah! Modern medicine? Ptewie! The computer? Who needs it? Ha! Electricity? What an evil crock! Science sux!

But it is the only way we can enforce our evil on the most unsuspecting in the world.

Some kids might appreciate being free from the kool aid.

Don't drink the kook aid, Dad. We wouldn't want you in science. You'd destroy us with your vast knowledge and super "True Logic"!

No, that would just show that they are half blind and not too bright, and misinformed.

You tell us!

"Not too bright". Yup. That's us. I wish we were as smart as you!

 

[juvenissun]

You've been invited several times to present your evidence that the universe was different in the past and you've yet to deliver more than hot air. Keep trying, though.

Is this a serious request? Sounds like a question from a school kid.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Is this a serious request? Sounds like a question from a school kid.

Juvenissun, obviously you have not seen Dad's non-stop use of the epistemological atomic bomb. He rolls right over Hume without a glance back.

So, I'm curious, why you would label Sandwiches request "like a question from a school kid".

I mean, it is hardly a question from a school kid. This is some pretty heavy, albeit intro epistemology.

I generally find your "dismissiveness" annoying and I'm willing to bet you won't engage in a substantive manner on this topic any more than you will on most geology topics.

Dad is playing in a part of the pool he doesn't even seem to understand, despite having it explained to him on numerous occasions. I've cited the various sources for Hume's writing and discussions of empiricism as well as the limits of empiricism.

Again, this isn't "kid stuff". Even if you, like most of us, were introduced to it when you were in undergrad in your philosophy classes, it is still pretty mind-bending and complex and doesn't reveal a clear answer.

It's effectively an "insoluble" problem in empiricism and that branch of epistemology.

 

[RickG]

If anything had changed with physical and chemical processes, we would find a completely different different set of properties between pre and post change. There are no differences in any physical or chemical properties of any substances on Earth or the observed universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

If anything had changed with physical and chemical processes, we would find a completely different different set of properties between pre and post chang.

This is why you guys so remind me of the time God showed up and took Elijah to Heaven.

The empiricists literally made a field trip out of it and came up empty-handed.

2 Kings 2:17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.

You guys are still looking for Elijah today, aren't you?

 

[thaumaturgy]

If anything had changed with physical and chemical processes, we would find a completely different different set of properties between pre and post change. There are no differences in any physical or chemical properties of any substances on Earth or the observed universe.

Well, to be fair to Dad, our "uniformity of nature" assumption is somewhat foundational.

Indeed if, say, the rate of radioactive decay dramatically and systemically changed there would be some indication (excess heating or even radiation-induced damage in crystals etc.), but if one posits that all of physics could have hypothetically been different in the past in such a way that all things fall outside of our understanding of it, it would render our ability to draw reasonable conclusions into doubt.

This is precisely what Hume was running up against when he proposed Empiricism at it's extremes.

If the only way I know something, my only "epistemology" is via experiencing it, then I can't really draw conclusions on cause and effect. And indeed I cannot know that which I have not experienced.

The sun has always risen in the east and set in the west. I can only assume it will do the same tomorrow as I have no way to "experience" the absolute causal foundation of that effect.

In the case of the "unobserved past" we have to rely on our "common sense" and an acquiescence that processes that occur today likely occured in the past at roughly the same rate and with roughly the same effects and responses.

What Dad wants to do is toss all that out. NOT to replace it with anything more robust but simply to decree the past "off limits" to any sort of understanding. Of course he will carve out an exception for the Bible. It comes from the distant past but it can be relied upon to give a perfect and accurate understanding of what occured.

I'm OK if Dad wants to drop the Epistemological Atomic Bomb on the discussion but I am not OK with him acting like it doesn't affect his own hypotheses about the past just because of some ex cathedra declaration.

 

[thaumaturgy]

This is why you guys so remind me of the time God showed up and took Elijah to Heaven.

The empiricists literally made a field trip out of it and came up empty-handed.

2 Kings 2:17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.

You guys are still looking for Elijah today, aren't you?

If you guys can't keep track of him, don't come to us for any help. We didn't lose him.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

If you guys can't keep track of him, don't come to us for any help. We didn't lose him.

Maybe he's in AV's closet.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you guys can't keep track of him, don't come to us for any help. We didn't lose him.

Elijah isn't lost -- you are.

(Unless, of course, you actually got saved at one time, like you profess you did.)

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Elijah isn't lost -- you are.

I know where I am, but where's Elijah?

 

[AV1611VET]

I know where I am, but where's Elijah?

QED: 112

 

[thaumaturgy]

Elijah isn't lost -- you are.

(Unless, of course, you actually got saved at one time, like you profess you did.)

Well then you go get him. Tell him some skeptics wanna see him.

(Do you have an estimated wait time?)

 

[thaumaturgy]

I know where I am, but where's Elijah?

Well, he's a bullfrog so he's likely somewhere near water. Oh, wait, different Elijah.

Yeah that Elijah done gone to heaven.

Or at least that's what his friends are telling the authorities.