Radioactive dating

[GlabrousDory4]

Rather than pump up your abilities

I don't need to pump up my abilities around here! Are you kidding?

, maybe concentrate on bringing your experience and education to bear on the topic and issues?

Why would I waste my time? Seriously? There's literally NO POINT in talking to you about your points in any depth. I mean I could easily point out the philosophy and the science topics related to your posts but you basically just laugh at everyone and claim they can't know anything. But somehow YOU can know all sorts of things.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. You believe what you believe. That's fine. But you don't seem to really understand a lot and that which you don't understand you wave away as "distant past" or some such gobbledygook.

Debating with you is truly the most pointless activity known to mankind! And not because you are so incredibly gifted...it's about as intellectually stimulating as debating a wall.

Don't be hatin' on God or creation or the beliefs of others here now.

I'm not hatin' at all! I know a lot of people who don't know anything about geology but they fear science because it doesn't always comport with God, so they attack the science or they make up science to fit their religion. That's perfectly fine! 100% fine! That's their faith. No one should attack their faith.

You are a special case in that you've found a clever work around using a portion of empiricism and epistemology (topics you'd have to learn more about to have a conversation with me), but your point is simple and largely flawed due to the problem of "special pleading". You just don't see it. (Or you don't want to, either way it "works" for you.)

But it helps you enjoy science you don't really understand while also enjoying creationist beliefs when they disagree with the science!

 

[Radagast]

It strikes me the Jesuits are the intellectual arm of the Catholic Church and their contribution to Science refutes the nonsense that Science is some atheist plot.
List of Jesuit scientists

The "intellectual arm of the Catholic Church" is the Dominican Order, surely?

 

[dad]

Such a sweeping generalisation should more appropriately read:

'One can believe what one likes, that is correct. One may not pretend to know'.

Yourself thusly included.

My process for acquiring knowledge includes evidence and objectively evidenced data ... You however, pretend that 'things' (time. light, universe etc) exist with no evidence for that whatsoever. (That's what your assumptions entail).

Time is actually real. Light also. Science may not pretend to know. God did not need to pretend. He does know.

 

[dad]

I notice the extensive use of exclamation marks indicating an emotional response.
Are you threatened by concepts you do not comprehend?

No, I just like to emphasize what you can't understand.

 

[dad]

I don't need to pump up my abilities around here! Are you kidding?

Great, so don't continue to do so. Your inflated claims about yourself get old fast.

Why would I waste my time? Seriously? There's literally NO POINT in talking to you about your points in any depth. I mean I could easily point out the philosophy and the science topics related to your posts but you basically just laugh at everyone and claim they can't know anything. But somehow YOU can know all sorts of things.

The idea in a debate is to make some points and defend them in a cohesive and topical way...not to point out 'philosophy'. I could ask Lucy from Peanuts for that.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. You believe what you believe. That's fine. But you don't seem to really understand a lot and that which you don't understand you wave away as "distant past" or some such gobbledygook.

What exactly about the distant past on earth is gobbledygook to you? Should we try to keep the discussion to last week for you?

Debating with you is truly the most pointless activity known to mankind! And not because you are so incredibly gifted...it's about as intellectually stimulating as debating a wall.

I understand how people who don't really have anything to say and don't really know much about the topic would feel that way. Sorry, I'm not here to run a counseling service.

I'm not hatin' at all! I know a lot of people who don't know anything about geology but they fear science because it doesn't always comport with God, so they attack the science or they make up science to fit their religion. That's perfectly fine! 100% fine! That's their faith. No one should attack their faith.

I know a bit about geology as it relates to the origins issues. Bunch of hooey. It is religion. Why would I expect it to fit mine?

You are a special case in that you've found a clever work around using a portion of empiricism and epistemology (topics you'd have to learn more about to have a conversation with me), but your point is simple and largely flawed due to the problem of "special pleading". You just don't see it. (Or you don't want to, either way it "works" for you.)

As much as you may like to pretend some higher abilities and knowledge, it is anything but special pleading to ask science to pony up support for it's basis for models of the past. Nothing special about their ignorance.

But it helps you enjoy science you don't really understand while also enjoying creationist beliefs when they disagree with the science!

Name anyone in the bible that did not enjoy the fact that God created all things? Hey, what's not to enjoy? As for science, no one enjoys a single solitary thing from science that has anything at all to do with their origins beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is also unsupported belief

It's not.

All technology is based on the assumptions that things work the way they work and that natural laws etc don't change.

Everytime someone flicks on the light, boots a pc, starts an engine, zaps to another TV channel,......., that assumption gathers more support.

We're upto a ridiculous amount now.

Here, I'll support it once more. I'm holding my keys.
When I let go, they will fall to earth, because that's what gravity does.

//lets go off keys

Hey, would you look at that? They fell!

They are more in the position of nightmares from the crypt.

I agree that reality is a nightmare for your beliefs.

Science is the one not only claiming nature will be the same in the future, and was always the same in the past, but also using that basis for all models of the future or past.

And only if you do it like that, do the models actually work.

I wonder why.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The way they are 'confirmed' is by projecting distances and sizes and forces based on the fishbowl. The end result of the projection is that it starts to look to you that, golly gee, it just must be what we thought.

You look at some area as if, for example it was in some cases millions of times bigger than our sun!!!!!

Supermassive black hole tells us when the first stars were born

Nothing about the details we see happening there is any better than that belief! What is rotating round what and for how long and how big etc etc etc. You have religion. Nothing more. Dyed in the wool religion. Then there is the plethora of wild stories associated with the rotating objects near some supposed 'black hole' such as how they will disappear into some nothingness and blah blah. For all we know, there are far different realities and forces at work in the universe than we dream. It does not all have to be based on fishbowl nature!!!

Your denial is your loss.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes it would make a difference, a huge difference. Radioactive decay rates would have happened faster when our velocity was less. But you are using the slower rate of today and calculating a uniform rate backwards to arrive at your results, when they increase as you go backwards, not stay the same rate.

There is an absolute standard for comparison. The fact you know clocks slow with increasing velocity....

You are trying to compare the rate it happens now, to the rate it happened in the past, which is not the same as the rate now. But yet you continue to use the rate now, to calculate the rate in the past, assuming equality when they are in fact not equal.

You therefore arrive at the wrong answer because you base your starting assumption of parent daughter ratios on the rate as it is today. But the rate today can not arrive at the correct parent daughter ratios in the past because the decay rate happened faster than it does now.

Yet you want to pretend that it has always happened at the same rate to save your incorrect belief in an accurate dating. But it hasn’t happened at the same rate. Therefore your assumption of parent daughter isotopes is flawed, because you base it on a constant rate when it has not been constant.

In one of those happy coincidences, I was just listening to Sean Carroll's Mindscape Podcast - December 2018 AMA (Ask Me Anything) at around the one hour mark, and a Peter Perchillo asked him a related question:

P.P. "People often remark that time seems to be speeding up - is it possible that local time is actually speeding up..., but there's no way to measure the change?"​

This is Sean's reply:

S.C. "I would say that if there's no way to measure the change, then it's not really sensible to say that local time is speeding up. I mean, you have to be careful with your language here - what do you mean "Time is speeding up"? Speed is always measured with respect to something; speed in space is miles per hour, right? you know, miles per hour. Time doesn't have a rate; time always moves as one second per second, or one year per year. It literally can't speed up..."​

This is essentially what I was saying, that local time is always a constant one second per second; it can only be considered to speed up or slow down up from the local point of view of some other frame with a different clock rate, (which, from the original frame's point of view, will itself be slow or fast respectively). But if you're not measuring from the point of view of, or comparing with, some other frame that has a different clock rate, it's irrelevant, meaningless even, to say that local time is faster or slower.

I think it's fair to say that Sean Carroll is an expert in the field, as he literally wrote the book on it - From Eternity To Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. ISBN 0-525-95133-4.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

I know a bit about geology as it relates to the origins issues. Bunch of hooey. It is religion.

I am unconvinced that you know much about geology.

As much as you may like to pretend some higher abilities and knowledge, it is anything but special pleading

Awww, and here we see you show your hand. You don't even know what "special pleading" means, do you? Oh, that's sad. You see there is wisdom in the Bible when it says pride goeth before destruction. In your haughty response you show us you don't even understand that.

Here you go: Special Pleading

As for science, no one enjoys a single solitary thing from science that has anything at all to do with their origins beliefs.

Wow. Please stop now. You are totally out of your depth.

 

[dad]

It's not.

All technology is based on the assumptions that things work the way they work and that natural laws etc don't change.

Everytime someone flicks on the light, boots a pc, starts an engine, zaps to another TV channel,......., that assumption gathers more support.

Did Nah boot an engine? Did Adam watch TV? Did Enoch boot a PC? No. Praytell how does what we do in this present nature and time relate to the early days of earth??

Here, I'll support it once more. I'm holding my keys.
When I let go, they will fall to earth, because that's what gravity does.

//lets go off keys

Hey, would you look at that? They fell!

Why would you discuss how nature and laws are now? What does that have to do with how they were??

I agree that reality is a nightmare for your beliefs.

Actually, for children being taught that there is no creation and no creator and being spoonfed a bunch of dark fables, that is a nightmare.

 

[dad]

Your denial is your loss.

Nothing to deny. Light and all things exist here on and near earth a certain way as determined by the sheme God has in place here. Your belief that this fishbowl must reflect all the universe as far as what time and space are like there needs no denying unless it was confirmed first. You are welcome to your religion. Lurkers: don't worry, not swallowing his religion is no loss at all, it is great gain.

 

[dad]

I am unconvinced that you know much about geology.

If you have some of that to bring to bear on the topic, I double dare you to.

Awww, and here we see you show your hand. You don't even know what "special pleading" means, do you? Oh, that's sad. You see there is wisdom in the Bible when it says pride goeth before destruction. In your haughty response you show us you don't even understand that.

Here you go: Special Pleading

definition: "Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

I am not the one with the science claim to defend here. I have no need to use your beliefs. Science must be supported on it's own criteria. Your models of the future and past must stand up to inspection by your own standards. Yet you have no support. One can also use the word 'special' in other ways as I do regarding the fables of science. They are special indeed. They also use special pleading because the beliefs used in models for science are not held up to the same standard as other beliefs such as the bible. In all ways, I win.

Wow. Please stop now. You are totally out of your depth.

Nice try. Whether you talk of the shallow gene pool, or the shallow puddle of knowledge science swim in, or the depth of the fishbowl, you guys don't even get my toes wet!

Looking at Scripture is different, as He Himself says "My ways are higher than your ways"

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Did Nah boot an engine? Did Adam watch TV? Did Enoch boot a PC? No. Praytell how does what we do in this present nature and time relate to the early days of earth??

You do realize that just about anyone whose ever read a book can talk you through every single step between modern PC booting and what people did 4000 years ago, right?

Why would you discuss how nature and laws are now? What does that have to do with how they were??

For the exact same reasons you think YOUR points are accurate. You think YOU can read the Bible and using MODERN UNDERSTANDING OF WORDS AND THINGS can draw meaningful conclusions.

For all you know ever single word ever written in the Bible in the distant past meant something dramatically different! (In fact if you know the history of your Bible you should understand that is EXACTLY how some things go. The Isaiahan prophesy of Jesus' virgin birth? Could be a mistranslation of the older Hebrew word for just a young woman, not necessarily a virgin ("almah")!)

But I can use the EXACT SAME METHOD you use to question science and modern natural law to question the Bible.

(Hint: since you were so disastrously unfamiliar with the phrase "special pleading", this is what I'm talking about. You reserve YOUR position to be accurate despite the fact that it falls under the same critique you use to question science!)

Actually, for children being taught that there is no creation and no creator and being spoonfed a bunch of dark fables, that is a nightmare.

While no one doubts your belief in Creationism and that's A-OK because it is your RELIGIOUS FAITH, it doesn't stand in connection to the same science you also rely on every single day. Hence your "argument". This is why it is dangerous for Creationists to attempt to shoe-horn science into their religious faith it ultimately damages the value of their own faith.

It's why most theologians DON'T like "God of the Gaps" theology! Ultimately it will lead to a weaker and smaller and ultimately a non-existent God.

You would be on much stronger position if you just said "God created the world in a massive miracle and for some reason He decided to make it look like something it wasn't" and leave it to the theologians to somehow not allow that God to be "deceptive".

 

[GlabrousDory4]

If you have some of that to bring to bear on the topic, I double dare you to.

LOL.

I am not the one with the science claim to defend here.

But YOU ARE MAKING A CLAIM: the past was dramatically different from the present and you cannot know anything about the past using information from the present.

That means you are also attacking the Bible for the exact same reason.

Sorry, you made the rules.

I personally prefer that we are able to read the Bible and make sense of events in the past but clearly you don't allow that.

If you say otherwise you are doing "special pleading".

Nice try. Whether you talk of the shallow gene pool, or the shallow puddle of knowledge science swim in, or the depth of the fishbowl, you guys don't even get my toes wet!

Well, as was noted earlier, you didn't even seem to know a pretty basic concept like "special pleading" and it is critical to your position's fatal flaw.

Looking at Scripture is different, as He Himself says "My ways are higher than your ways"

And you know you are reading it "God's way" exactly HOW? Are you God? Hmmmm. Or are you using your mind? Are you doing your own thinking? Hmmmm....

A bit of a pickle you have yourself in there.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nothing to deny. Light and all things exist here on and near earth a certain way as determined by the sheme God has in place here. Your belief that this fishbowl must reflect all the universe as far as what time and space are like there needs no denying unless it was confirmed first. You are welcome to your religion. Lurkers: don't worry, not swallowing his religion is no loss at all, it is great gain.

I don't need to believe that the laws at work locally are the same elsewhere, there are multiple independent lines of repeatable evidence that they do - evidence that has persuaded the greatest minds of the last 100 years and more.

That you feel the need to describe the search for knowledge as a 'religion' only highlights the isolated parochialism of your viewpoint.

 

[sjastro]

No, I just like to emphasize what you can't understand.

A prerequisite of assessing the level of comprehension in others is the ability of the assessor of thinking for themselves.
You do not appear to possess this facility as the Bible does the thinking for you.

I will give you the opportunity however of proving me wrong.
Since you believe we know absolutely nothing about the spectrum of 3C-273 at the source, then for all intents and purposes the spectrum should be random.
Yet when we compare this spectrum to a laboratory spectrum of hydrogen we get a remarkable connection and a magical number.

At Hγ = (503-434)/434
= 0.159
At Hβ = (563-486)/486
= 0.158
At Hα = (760 – 656)/656
=0.159

Alternatively if we took the laboratory spectrum for hydrogen (which is located in your “fishbowl“) and for each wavelength we multiplied this magical number by the wavelength and added the result to the wavelength we reproduce the wavelengths in the 3C-273 spectrum.
Explain to us how this relationship is consistent in the context of knowing nothing about the spectrum of 3C-273 at the source.

While we are at it do you believe in the tooth fairy?
“Logic” dictates the answer is yes as one cannot prove the tooth fairy doesn’t exist hence it must exist.
As stupid and idiotic as this line of reasoning is, it is no different to your reasoning about time.
Time outside your fishbowl is different because no one can prove it is the same as time inside the fishbowl.

It's up to you to explain why your reasoning is not irrational and illogical.

 

[SelfSim]

... While we are at it do you believe in the tooth fairy?
“Logic” dictates the answer is yes as one cannot prove the tooth fairy doesn’t exist hence it must exist.

As an aside:
Saying 'but its possible that the tooth fairy exists', (which is so common in my travels its not funny), is effectively a demand for one to completely disregard the key distinguishing boundary between science and logic (unless an objective test is produced).

Whenever the 'its possible', (aka special pleading), thing shows up now, the alarm bells go off.

 

[dad]

You do realize that just about anyone whose ever read a book can talk you through every single step between modern PC booting and what people did 4000 years ago, right?

No. Nice try.

For the exact same reasons you think YOUR points are accurate. You think YOU can read the Bible and using MODERN UNDERSTANDING OF WORDS AND THINGS can draw meaningful conclusions.

For all you know ever single word ever written in the Bible in the distant past meant something dramatically different!

Since Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophesies we actually can say words were the same. It is a pity that those of your religion tend to get fanatical and toss out all reality and history if their beliefs do not get accepted.

(In fact if you know the history of your Bible you should understand that is EXACTLY how some things go. The Isaiahan prophesy of Jesus' virgin birth? Could be a mistranslation of the older Hebrew word for just a young woman, not necessarily a virgin ("almah")!)

No. It was confirmed in the New Testament and the meaning is clear in the old also. Grasping at straws much, now?

But I can use the EXACT SAME METHOD you use to question science and modern natural law to question the Bible.

(Hint: since you were so disastrously unfamiliar with the phrase "special pleading", this is what I'm talking about. You reserve YOUR position to be accurate despite the fact that it falls under the same critique you use to question science!)

What is special about your pleadings about the future and past is that they all rest on one belief. One belief binds them. That belief is something you both consider special and above normal standards of evidences like historical records, as well as something that you hold exempt from your own criteria!!!! 'Oh, we don't need to prove or support the very basis for all models of the past and present, you see once we accept them, it all seems to make sense viewed that way!' Would you call that special pleading? Or would you only call special pleading anything that does not include and embrace your beliefs!?

While no one doubts your belief in Creationism and that's A-OK because it is your RELIGIOUS FAITH, it doesn't stand in connection to the same science you also rely on every single day.

We all rely on God every single day. For the sun to shine. For nature to continue existing. For life etc etc etc. There is NOTHING in this world from science that is related to the origin fables that anyone needs any more than one needs a snake bite. Trying to associate your religion with actual science of the present age is hypocritical and cheap.

Hence your "argument". This is why it is dangerous for Creationists to attempt to shoe-horn science into their religious faith it ultimately damages the value of their own faith.

In the mind of those of your religion it may seem damaged. Too bad the beliefs that oppose Jesus and creation are not only damaged in the view of real bible believers, but in a junk pile forever. No hope of salvaging them.

It's why most theologians DON'T like "God of the Gaps" theology! Ultimately it will lead to a weaker and smaller and ultimately a non-existent God.

The God that 'created' mankind and Adam and Eve and brought the flood cannot grow weak, despite the little faith of some. What would be weak is if He really lied to us in the Scripture Jesus confirmed was true about creation. It is not my beliefs that are weak. The weakness lies in those afraid to have similar beliefs.

You would be on much stronger position if you just said "God created the world in a massive miracle and for some reason He decided to make it look like something it wasn't" and leave it to the theologians to somehow not allow that God to be "deceptive".

Only to those in your religion does it look like something it wasn't. To me, the world looks fine. I realize heaven is coming and that this present word is temporary as we know it now. Looking at the far past in the same light involves no deception at all. The deception was in trying to say that this present nature was the key to the past and future!

 

[dad]

LOL.



But YOU ARE MAKING A CLAIM: the past was dramatically different from the present and you cannot know anything about the past using information from the present.

God made the creation claim and the claims about the past and future in the bible. Science made other claims about the same things that are diametrically opposed to God's version. I look at both claims. You cannot defend YOUR claim, Jesus defended God's!

I personally prefer that we are able to read the Bible and make sense of events in the past but clearly you don't allow that.

Not where 'making sense' means calling God a liar and disrespecting everything He said! Not where 'making sense' means viewing it exclusively through YOUR religious lens!

If you say otherwise you are doing "special pleading".

Yes we know, you redefined that phrase to mean 'anyone that does not blindly swallow my religion is special pleading'!

And you know you are reading it "God's way" exactly HOW? Are you God? Hmmmm. Or are you using your mind? Are you doing your own thinking? Hmmmm....

How about the same way everyone else in the bible reads it? Even the angels!

 

[dad]

I don't need to believe that the laws at work locally are the same elsewhere, there are multiple independent lines of repeatable evidence that they do - evidence that has persuaded the greatest minds of the last 100 years and more.

That you feel the need to describe the search for knowledge as a 'religion' only highlights the isolated parochialism of your viewpoint.

There are zero lines of evidence anywhere. You offered evidences soaked and painted and immersed and sprayed with your beliefs. Then you offer a religious opinion of how that all seems wonderful enough for you. Religion. You see and experience nothing ever out of the fishbowl, and you interpret...religiously..accordingly.