It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423
What??? Because I have a life and don't come in here more than ever so often, I've disappeared into the Aether? A thing that you, being an adherent of the paradigms, obviously must not believe in to begin with??? LOL
I'm still here and still waiting for even a semblance of empirical evidence for something that by it's very nature cannot have any. Please, I'll ask you again, provide any evidence that any of the premises from my earlier logical statement are false.
Jaden
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423
Again, this is getting tired. I'm not the one who doesn't understand empirical evidence. Actually, rather, it's not that you don't understand empirical evidence. It just is apparent that you don't understand what empirical evidence can actually show.
Hence, why I asked what you thought could be logically concluded from the atomic clock experiments. I'm trying to figure out where your lack of logical reasoning in this regard is coming from.
Jaden
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: TerryDon79
I'm sorry, but unlike opinion, everything I've stated is simple logic, it does not require a statement of opinion because it's not. You can attempt to refute the premises, you can attempt to assail the validity of the logic, you CANNOT simply dismiss it as opinion because it is not.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423
I did read the paper and I pointed out the logical flaws in the conclusions that you appear to be drawing from them.
Jaden
reply to: Phantom423 I just read that paper and while compelling, it suffers from the same problem as any number of other dating methods for great ages. It requires extrapolating short period measured results without direct knowledge of the specific time involved. It's kind of like when people say that the earth isn't round it's elliptical. Yes, technically it IS elliptical, but did you know that it is rounder and smoother than the average billiard ball? If you were to think the opposite, you would be erroneously extrapolating the apparent roundness and smoothness of a billiard ball to a degree that just doesn't exist in reality. Science does the same trying to apply the scientific method to non empirically measurable theories. For instance, let's say that Einstein's theories of relativity are correct. That means that in areas of denser space/time such as gravity wells, time slows down. This would also mean that if space/time stretches as the universe expands, that time dilates the further away from the center of the universe we go. This actually better explains some phenomena we have observed than the current paradigms do, and I have seen some physicists starting to gravitate towards this theory. It explains the apparent blue and red shift better than the doppler effect without requiring contrived immeasurable constructs like dark matter. It explains better the apparent FTL travel of objects in distant space, etc. What this also means is that since time is not constant, measuring vast distances of time by current measuring sticks just don't work. This leads to the problems with trying to apply scientific principles to things that aren't observable. They ALL by their very nature become non-empirical. They are not directly observable or testable because even slight changes in decay rates, etc due to unknown variables leads to vast differences in conclusions. As I've previously stated, this doesn't mean that we can't gain from the studies of these things; however, we would be much better served by looking at them for what they are, rather than what they aren't. They are nothing more than conjecture based theory and belief. We need to gain from them what we can while acknowledging what they aren't. What they most certainly are NOT, is fact or the only explanation. With so many unknown and unknowable variables, it is imperative that we acknowledge this fact if we want to minimize the negative impact that paradigms give us. After all, scientific paradigms put the earth at the center of the universe, the sun at the center of the universe and that our ancestors were minerals and lightning. Jaden
a reply to: Masterjaden That's an interesting analysis. But what exactly in the papers do you not agree with? How do the analytical techniques utilized show "what they are not"? The results are facts. They are not absolutes. Nothing in science is totally absolute. Please point out exactly how the methodology supports your opinion. Thanks
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Phantom423
You'd think it would be a simple affair to highlight the methodological issues of the study if it was as blatant as MJ et al. claim. Yet instead we get grandiose statements that do everything BUT make specific arguments about the science in question.
Que some furious hand waving and off-topic screeds. Anything but address the evidence at hand.
Of course, this is all working on the assumption that the paper was even read in the first place...
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Phantom423
You'd think it would be a simple affair to highlight the methodological issues of the study if it was as blatant as MJ et al. claim. Yet instead we get grandiose statements that do everything BUT make specific arguments about the science in question.
Que some furious hand waving and off-topic screeds. Anything but address the evidence at hand.
Of course, this is all working on the assumption that the paper was even read in the first place...
originally posted by: Masterjaden
Logical assertions are capable of standing alone on their own merit. You simply showcase your lack of understanding by making the assertion that I need to back up a LOGICAL assertion with evidence or reference.
I don't need to rely on other people for my thinking and logical evaluation. It seems that you do. You should be fully capable of logically evaluating the assertions that I've made without need for a reference. Most people shouldn't need others to do their thinking for them.
This is a common problem with people enamored with a given paradigm. They need to be told what to think about a given subject. It's alright, if you try really hard, you might be able to start thinking for yourself.
still waiting to hear what you think can be ascertained from the atomic clock experiments. If you aren't familiar with them wiki is your friend.
q
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton
Since you seem to be having issues with Radiometric dating. Here is some reading for you
Dalrymple, G. B., (2004) Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age o the Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Marshak, S., (2008). Earth: Portrait of a Planet. Third Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Hedman, M. (2007). The Age of Everything. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Isaak, M. (2004). CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates. Talk.Origins. www.talkorigins.org... Accessed 2011-08-12.
Isaak, M. (2004). CD001: Geochronometry and closed systems. www.talkorigins.org... Accessed 2011-08-12.
Isaak, M. (2004). Geochronology and initial conditions. www.talkorigins.org... Accessed 2011-08-12.
That "paper" you linked, was not a paper. The APPT is the American Association of Physics Teachers
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423
I did read the paper and I pointed out the logical flaws in the conclusions that you appear to be drawing from them.
Jaden
originally posted by: peter vlar
Pb 206 does not exist naturally.
It only comes into existence as the end result of Uraniums decay process. Therefore, there is zero lead 206 until the uraniu
Therefore the starting ratio is going to consist of all Uranium, zero lead. It's not an assumption. It's chemistry.
Please, show me a citation demonstrating that an unnaturally occurring isotope of Lead could have contaminated the uranium thereby skewing the initial ratio.