Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[Zosimus]

Zosimus


I do not understand what point you are trying to make. If you are saying that there is something wrong with the way Dendrochronology is done, I think cites to the literature would be more appropriate. It is not my area but so far, at least to me, you are mostly being vague and a little obscure.

Open Source Dendrochronology – Aardvarchaeology This is a blog, interesting but again cites would be a lot better..

"Dendrochronology: Tool of Truth or Deception?" by Stewart Pollens He is a Fine Musical Instrument Expert and restorer. What is the point?

Field Techniques I don't understand why this was cited. All scientific measurement methods have some problems that the researchers have to be aware of and deal with in their articles.

Again, what point are you trying to make. It is much better to make a point and support it rather than post stuff with no explanation.

So let us know what you are trying to say.

Dizredux

Let me see whether I understand your logic.

There's a tree that appears to have 9,000 rings. You conclude that it's 9,000 years old. You don't see a problem with that simplistic logic? I've provided links that show that trees can easily add two rings a year if it has two rainy seasons in the same year whereas it might add none a year if there's a drought. I've also provided links that show that if there's a fire one year, or landslides, or the tree grows on an uneven slope, or even if the tree branches into two that number of rings will not match the actual number of years of the tree.

I've also provided you the work of an honest violin scholar who cares nothing about the age of the Earth one way or another trying to use dendrochronology to find the age of a violin. He discovered, however, that he could find multiple dates with 99.9% accuracy and that using different techniques lead to different dates with no overlap between them.

The best counterargument you can come up with is to suggest that since Stewart Pollens is a Fine Musical Instrument Expert and Restorer that his findings are invalid?

I can only conclude that this is some sort of a modified Appeal To Authority logical fallacy. Since Stewart Pollens is not a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical atheist with multiple BS degrees and a history of peer-reviewed publications, he must be part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to deny the truth and suppress progress – is that the argument I'm encountering?

 

[Dizredux]

Let me see whether I understand your logic.

What logic? I was just trying to find out what your point was.

There's a tree that appears to have 9,000 rings. You conclude that it's 9,000 years old. You don't see a problem with that simplistic logic? I've provided links that show that trees can easily add two rings a year if it has two rainy seasons in the same year whereas it might add none a year if there's a drought. I've also provided links that show that if there's a fire one year, or landslides, or the tree grows on an uneven slope, or even if the tree branches into two that number of rings will not match the actual number of years of the tree.

I've also provided you the work of an honest violin scholar who cares nothing about the age of the Earth one way or another trying to use dendrochronology to find the age of a violin. He discovered, however, that he could find multiple dates with 99.9% accuracy and that using different techniques lead to different dates with no overlap between them.

The best counterargument you can come up with is to suggest that since Stewart Pollens is a Fine Musical Instrument Expert and Restorer that his findings are invalid?

I can only conclude that this is some sort of a modified Appeal To Authority logical fallacy. Since Stewart Pollens is not a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical atheist with multiple BS degrees and a history of peer-reviewed publications, he must be part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to deny the truth and suppress progress – is that the argument I'm encountering?

I have no clue where you are getting all this from, certainly not from my post. I did critique your cites somewhat but since you were not discussing anything or presenting any of your ideas all I had to look were some not all that good sources.

Your response strikes me a bit paranoid. Can you make some kind of clear point? Peer reviewed support of whatever it is might be nice.

Right now, all I can tell is that you don't like something about tree ring dating. Again what is the point you are trying to make?

Not a big deal to me as tree ring dating is not one of my areas of interest. Mostly I was curious as to what you were going on about.

Take care, respond or not as you wish for as I said, this is not an area of big interest to me.

Dizredux

 

[dad]

You ignore all of the evidence around you in favor of your made up fantasies. That is the very definition of crazy.

Thanks for sharing your paranoid delusions that you think you have some evidence people ignore.

 

[dad]

How many times have you "gonged" yourself now dad?

None. That honor is reserved for those displaying words of no real value.

 

[dad]

I would like to clarify a point with you. Based on this response and others you have given, it seems to me that you don't dispute the fact that dendrochronology and other dating methods yield ages that do not conform to the YEC model.

False. They interpret rings to be ages when they cannot possibly be ages unless we had a same state past. Prove that first or there are no ages. There are rings.

But you believe those results are incorrect because they assume that the past state was the same as the present state. Correct?

Right.

In other words, the evidence when viewed through the (to your mind incorrect) assumption of a same state past indicates an old earth. The (according to you) true age of the Earth is only revealed when on

Yes basically, although I do not derive the age of the earth from the physical evidences alone. That is like tea leaf reading.

 

[dad]

Zosimus-- "In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation.
The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood.
Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part—and this is crucial—because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one."

The problem is not with fraud in fudging the data, although that has happened on occasion in science. Fame and grant money and human nature can be a funny mix.


The issue is the methodology and beliefs which extend through all science, that determine how rings and other data are determined. They cannot ever stray from their little intellectual prison, so any collaboration is just among inmates!

 

[Atheos canadensis]

AC: In other words, the evidence when viewed through the (to your mind incorrect) assumption of a same state past indicates an old earth. The (according to you) true age of the Earth is only revealed when only revealed when one assumes a different state past. Is that right?

Yes basically, although I do not derive the age of the earth from the physical evidences alone. That is like tea leaf reading.

Okay, cool. That's what I thought. You are among the creationist here (like AV) who admit that the evidence shows an old earth. You think think the uniformitarian assumption is wrong, but you admit at least tacitly that the evidence does not fit a young earth unless one invokes a different past state.

In other words, you tacitly admit what AV is willing to openly admit: the evidence supports an old Earth, but you're going to believe your biblical literalism anyway.

 

[PsychoSarah]

One cannot hold that view for long if one studies it, because no man could do it. The life of Christ and events of history and prophesies make that utterly impossible.

Because one believes them I guess. But don't get silly with the literal business....a camel perhaps might have trouble getting through the eye of the needle. That does not give one license to disrespect the text as to what is presented as truth and fact though.

Jesus and the apostles confirmed the flood and creation. No hiding behind Hebrew possible there.

I know better. There is a reason it is the best seller of all time.

That does not make you an expert on spirits, when you claim to be an agnostic atheist.

As an opinion, sure. An opinion based on nothing much at all, or less when it comes to God being real or spirits.


A neutral cannot take one side, so cannot be on the winning side.

It does make a statement loud and clear that there is no God but that the universe and life created itself basically. It just cannot be honest about it's position and pretends neutrality.

Yes it does, The land of israel is a long series of fulfilled prophesies for example.
History can cover things science cannot. The spiritual for example is not part of science but a major major major part of history. Science is not only unreliable in any discussion of anything spiritual, it is ignorant, and biased. It draws a cultish little circle and keeps it all out.


Trusting in God and His son is never wrong and can never be. Scripture will last forever and this world will pass away.

I say it is a choice, because if we chose to try to believe and want to believe, God helps us, and has given us His words to give us more faith. Peter had some faith, and was saved, yet he started to sink beneath the waves when he looked down, when he started walking on water one day. Like a baby, we grow, we are not expected to be mr or mrs superwoman or superman in faith at first any more than a baby.

You are wrong about that. The more I study the bible itself, the less convinced I am of the text being written/inspired by an actual deity, much less an omniscient and omnipotent one. Perhaps if you didn't go into it assuming it was true and assuming all evidence to the contrary was wrong, you'd have a similar experience. But frankly, I don't even know how someone can read the interactions between David and Saul and not at least note the poor editing. Seriously, it is like those ancient nomads weren't even trying with those parts. Also, the prophecies are so vague and general, it would be more astounding if they weren't for the most part fulfilled than not. They rarely are specific enough to warrant notice, and most of those which are tend to be fulfilled within the context of the story. Which makes those predictions about as amazing as the one that predicted Harry Potter would put an end to Voldemort.

Lots of texts present themselves to be true, it doesn't mean they are. At worst, I disrespect the writing method of the bible, and frankly, I doubt anyone views it all as really written well. Written well all things considered perhaps, but not really written well. I might not necessarily feel that literal interpretations of said text are justified, but I don't intend disrespect by it. More that I don't think the text was ever intended to be taken so literally to begin with.

I never said none of it was literal, however, seeing as I don't consider Jesus to actually be some embodyment of a deity, it doesn't shock me that said people interpreted portions of the text that way.

Plenty of works of fiction are best sellers. It wouldn't shock me if fictional novels topped the charts more often than factual ones.

I never stated I was an expert on spirits. The most I have ever claimed on that topic was that I used to believe ghosts were actually the spirits of dead people; I no longer do.

Not a whole lot of evidence either way on the existence of deities in general, but I do have valid reasons to have serious doubts about any deity suggested by your or anyone else's specific religion.

The issue is far less black and white than you make it out to be.

That is my general belief statement, but I have never actually defended it. In case you haven't noticed, I have no motivation to do that. I have defended why I feel that way, but little more.

Self-fulfilling prophecy is self-fulfilling.

Scripture at most will last as long as our species does, and frankly, I doubt it will last that long, should we manage not to destroy ourselves.

My personal experience suggests otherwise.

 

[bhsmte]

None. That honor is reserved for those displaying words of no real value.

I can't keep count with how many times you have gonged yourself.

 

[dad]

I can't keep count with how many times you have gonged yourself.

Gong!

 

[dad]

Okay, cool. That's what I thought. You are among the creationist here (like AV) who admit that the evidence shows an old earth. You think think the uniformitarian assumption is wrong, but you admit at least tacitly that the evidence does not fit a young earth unless one invokes a different past state.

In other words, you tacitly admit what AV is willing to openly admit: the evidence supports an old Earth, but you're going to believe your biblical literalism anyway.

False. The evidence supports whatever one wants it to, and starts off with a methodology to get it to say! No evidence anywhere supports anything contrary to the creation of God given to man in Scripture. Ever. When you misuse the word evidence you want us to take it to mean the mutilated, sprayed, contorted, sullied, colored, and same state past drenched evidences that seem right in your religious eyes!

 

[dad]

You are wrong about that. The more I study the bible itself, the less convinced I am of the text being written/inspired by an actual deity, much less an omniscient and omnipotent one.

I never studied it until I sincerely asked Jesus into my heart. Only with Him in us can we understand and grow from it.

Perhaps if you didn't go into it assuming it was true and assuming all evidence to the contrary was wrong, you'd have a similar experience.

Too late, I know it is all wrong now. I am not a baby anymore.

But frankly, I don't even know how someone can read the interactions between David and Saul and not at least note the poor editing. Seriously, it is like those ancient nomads weren't even trying with those parts.

What you think is poor editing may have a deeper purpose you just have not seen.

Also, the prophecies are so vague and general, it would be more astounding if they weren't for the most part fulfilled than not.

Nothing Vague about Jesus riding in on a donkey, Israel being taken captive for seven decades to Babylon, the Messiah born of a virgin, in a certain specific town, having His hands and feet pierced, healing the lame and blind, etc etc etc.

Lots of texts present themselves to be true, it doesn't mean they are. At worst, I disrespect the writing method of the bible, and frankly, I doubt anyone views it all as really written well.

Most consider it a work of art actually. Here is an example

Psalm 23

1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Written well all things considered perhaps, but not really written well. I might not necessarily feel that literal interpretations of said text are justified, but I don't intend disrespect by it. More that I don't think the text was ever intended to be taken so literally to begin with.

Not the smallest jot or tittle will be unfulfilled Jesus said!

I never said none of it was literal, however, seeing as I don't consider Jesus to actually be some embodyment of a deity, it doesn't shock me that said people interpreted portions of the text that way.

That is the core issue of life on earth...how we see Christ. The way to the truth (He is the Truth) depends on us knowing that God came to earth as a man.

I never stated I was an expert on spirits. The most I have ever claimed on that topic was that I used to believe ghosts were actually the spirits of dead people; I no longer do.

So do you believe in spirits at all?

Self-fulfilling prophecy is self-fulfilling.

Problem with that non biblical type of cheap so called prophesy, is that it is also wrong as often as not. Also, many prophesies in the bible are way way beyond any possibility whatsoever of being self fulfilled.

Scripture at most will last as long as our species does, and frankly, I doubt it will last that long, should we manage not to destroy ourselves.

Prophesy based on personal mistaken baseless notions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I never studied it until I sincerely asked Jesus into my heart. Only with Him in us can we understand and grow from it.

Too late, I know it is all wrong now. I am not a baby anymore.

What you think is poor editing may have a deeper purpose you just have not seen.

Nothing Vague about Jesus riding in on a donkey, Israel being taken captive for seven decades to Babylon, the Messiah born of a virgin, in a certain specific town, having His hands and feet pierced, healing the lame and blind, etc etc etc.

Most consider it a work of art actually. Here is an example

Psalm 23

1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.


Not the smallest jot or tittle will be unfulfilled Jesus said!

That is the core issue of life on earth...how we see Christ. The way to the truth (He is the Truth) depends on us knowing that God came to earth as a man.

So do you believe in spirits at all?
Problem with that non biblical type of cheap so called prophesy, is that it is also wrong as often as not. Also, many prophesies in the bible are way way beyond any possibility whatsoever of being self fulfilled.
Prophesy based on personal mistaken baseless notions.

So like I said, you read it assuming it was all absolute truth and thus over time considered any evidence to the contrary to be wrong.

I'm not a baby either, but one need not be a genius or by any means old to note the bible has consistency problems. In every instance you have to make huge, crazy inferences or jump through hoops to try to make it seem as if the bible isn't contradicting itself, I just sigh.

Unconfirmed events are unconfirmed. Plus, it is fairly easy to make Jesus seem to fulfill prophecies when you, as the writer, know the prophecies exist, and anyone who could call you out for a liar is dead.

I said I doubt people consider ALL of it to be a work of art; I doubt you would be posting quotes from Judges as an example of literary genius.

Every prophecy shall be fulfilled, some dude said. You might as well tell me "the end is near" while you are at it. You know I don't consider Jesus divine, so exactly what sort of reaction did you expect from me?

Unless you are Jewish or Muslim. Or believe in a completely unrelated deity system altogether (I said related, not same. Happy?).

I am ambivalent about paranormal activity, honestly. However, I do recognize that even if such stuff is confirmed, it won't mean that such phenomena are created by the spirits of the dead.

Any prophecy in the bible fulfilled within its pages might as well not even exist for all it proves. Which is to say, it proves nothing. Any prophecy projected for the future which has yet to happen also proves nothing. Any prophecy that humans can actively make happen means nothing if the people who fulfill it are aware of the prophecy. Now tell me, what amazingly specific prophecy in the bible gets passed those three things?

My assertion that the maximum length of time that Christianity can survive is for how long our species does is hardly baseless. Unless you think there are other species who worship? Also, the fact that I doubt it would last for that long is backed by the simple historical fact that religions, even ones that lasted a very long time, tend to eventually die out.

 

[dad]

So like I said, you read it assuming it was all absolute truth and thus over time considered any evidence to the contrary to be wrong.

Yes! Along with innumerable confirmations along the way of course.

I'm not a baby either, but one need not be a genius or by any means old to note the bible has consistency problems. In every instance you have to make huge, crazy inferences or jump through hoops to try to make it seem as if the bible isn't contradicting itself, I just sigh.

Comprehension of the bible requires His spirit. Otherwise you just get muddled and it seems muddled to you.

Unconfirmed events are unconfirmed.

You have no events confirming anything in the bible was not true.

Plus, it is fairly easy to make Jesus seem to fulfill prophecies when you, as the writer, know the prophecies exist, and anyone who could call you out for a liar is dead.

Not really. You may know He was to rise from the dead, but that doesn't help you any! You may know He was to be born of a virgin...so? Like any man could do that!?

I said I doubt people consider ALL of it to be a work of art; I doubt you would be posting quotes from Judges as an example of literary genius.

This guy seems to disagree with you!

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/tynbull_1967_18_04_lilley_literaryjudges.pdf

Every prophecy shall be fulfilled, some dude said. You might as well tell me "the end is near" while you are at it. You know I don't consider Jesus divine, so exactly what sort of reaction did you expect from me?

Since MOST prophesies are now history, your point is mooted something fierce.

I am ambivalent about paranormal activity, honestly. However, I do recognize that even if such stuff is confirmed, it won't mean that such phenomena are created by the spirits of the dead.

There is always room for doubt. Like some people doubt last week.

Any prophecy in the bible fulfilled within its pages might as well not even exist for all it proves.

False. The nation of Israel spent great resources and effort ensuring that it was only true prophets who got in there (otherwise they were to be KILLED if they prophesied falsely). The events of Scripture are the pinnacle of tried tested and true.

Which is to say, it proves nothing. Any prophecy projected for the future which has yet to happen also proves nothing.

False. Knowing that prophesy was true and fulfilled as was a pattern with prophets and even Jesus, ensures that the bits in the future are to be fulfilled also.

Any prophecy that humans can actively make happen means nothing if the people who fulfill it are aware of the prophecy. Now tell me, what amazingly specific prophecy in the bible gets passed those three things?

Try coming back from the dead.

My assertion that the maximum length of time that Christianity can survive is for how long our species does is hardly baseless. Unless you think there are other species who worship? Also, the fact that I doubt it would last for that long is backed by the simple historical fact that religions, even ones that lasted a very long time, tend to eventually die out.

Yes, guessing at how long we will live is worthless since you have no possible proof. God says it is forever!!