Circular reasoning or not?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its creationist scientific. Thus biased. What these gentlemen (I am assuming, so if I am wrong, sorry) don't get is that in general Science is unbiased, because it subscribes to no actual philosophy beyond "furthering human understanding". Creationist Science on the other hand? It has an agenda, disapproving anything which calls the creation myth of Christianity into question. Lets ignore that the Bible is rather spotty in its creation myth, and contradicts itself in places.

Thus if they have an agenda then you must also have one right?

Oh look the usual crowd in to attempt to disprove evolution but utterally fails due to not understand what it actually is.
It is like they try their darnest to justify their religion when both evolution and god can go hand in hand.
As always they dismiss evidence and science.
Brainwashed they are...no point attempting to show them evidence because they would never allow evidence because it destroys their religious view.

a reply to: borntowatch

Pseudoscience you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Viz

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status

Thus

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution (Hall & Hallgrímsson 2008, pp. 3–5)

Evolution was formulated using scientific method (Darwin was a Scientist) corroborated and refined through continuous observation and investigation, and can indeed be tested. Evolution has been observed, though I fully expect one of your coven uh group to pull the terms "Micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" out of an orifice. You will get a very similar response when you try that gambit neighbor. If you wish to argue with me, at least come armed with knowledge of the subject eh?

a reply to: boymonkey74

To be fair this time it is ServantoftheLamb (baaaa) trying to show young earth creationism is the correct answer Evolution just happened to get dragged in by one of his congregation

a reply to: Noinden

SOL is doing no such thing. I am not a young earth creationist, I am a I don't know creationist. I just simply had a question concerning the dating of fossils and rocks. Barc is the only one on this thread who actually responded to the point I mentioned in the thread.

a reply to: Barcs

The index fossils are first dated using multiple radiometric dating methods. Once they date the fossil they can date the strata since it is made with the same rock. They don't just assume the index fossils are right, they date them first. LMAO at circular reasoning. This is Kent Hovind reasoning and is wrong. Also Borntowatch should be ignored.

I appreciate you actually responding to my question. As I said I was merely curious if I misunderstood something. Your saying its not circular reasoning because radiometric dating methods are used on index fossils. The process then becomes radiometric dating yields index fossils dates which yields rock dates which yields fossil dates . Can you give me a source I can go to that supplies this information in support of supposed hominid evolution? One that actually shows that all the different types of dating systems match up on the age of those fossils? You see many people seem to think that I am arguing for a young earth and I am not. You see I am more interested in how all of these dating methods and evolution hold up. Its not easy to find good information on the topic.

a reply to: Phantom423

You lack belief in radiometric dating, yet you can provide no scientific rationale for that belief. Post a few citations. Let's see how "rational" you are.

My position is the negative. Its much like if I were to say "prove God doesn't exist." I don't have the burden of proof and yet your asking me for proof?

a reply to: Prezbo369

Yea and all muslims are notorious terrorist...you are ridiculous and hae no interest in truth on any thread you participate in.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This has bearing on the thread how? I know you are worried with your reasoning abilities, but come now, this was rather off topic.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yet your only link thus far which you have provided, is from a creationist site. You can pretend its not, but it redirects to one neighbor. Your arguments are also thsoe used by young earth creationists. Thus, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like one, it is a waterfowl most likely a duck.

a reply to: borntowatch

You did just quote one person!... You are so intellectually dishonest that it's impossible to have a reasoned conversation with you!

Henry Morris was quote mining a bunch of other people (some real scientists and some young earth supporters) to support his pre-existing views. I only glanced through a few of his sources, and it didn’t take me long to find how he had taken those specific quotes out of context. He is not representing his sources honestly.

This is another creationist tactic; when one source is refuted, bury the opponent in many other sources making a focused discussion meaningless.

Rather than getting me to do all your legwork, how about you point out to me one other author (at a time) that you think is presenting valid evidence for young earth, along with your own opinions on the source?

This is why Morris and other YEC's get so much ridicule... because they seemingly purposefully misinterpret the data to support a preconceived notion.

Their arguments are subjective not objective.

I'm really not going to be bothered to review 10 authors for you when It’s already been done better than I am going to achieve in a forum post (especially since if you don't agree with my review you will ignore it and play the victim card claiming I am attacking people not the science), but here is a list which includes most of the authors in your list, showing how and where they have been quote mined:

The Quote Mine Project

Essentially Morris, and thus yourself, are arguing old arguments that have been thoroughly addressed time and again from multiple angles... and guess what... the creationists have lost these arguments time and again (which is why creation arguments are not accepted facts in the body of knowledge, and why creationists have retreated to their bunker of creation websites to confirm each other’s bias in a closed bubble)... you just don't want to accept it.

How old do you think that the earth is? How far off do you think that current dating techniques are? What’s the error deviation; thousands, millions or billions of years?

Are simple tests of times such as the 3 million year old age of a stalactite incorrect? Can we not count how long it takes secretion to build up, and infer a fairly accurate age of certain geological features?

Again… show me a valid alternative to the accepted age ranges of the geology of the earth?

If you can, I will happily delve into the information… you see I love alternative theories… especially if there is even an iota of evidence that can support them. I love it when the norm is tipped on its head by new evidence… so if you can produce anything… anything at all… that shows that large chunks of our accepted knowledge have to be revised, I will be right there beside you sharing and learning the facts.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: borntowatch

Once again, you are ignorant of science and mathematics. The first link is from - as you call it - inception - from the beginning - from naturium - the first element. There aren't enough emoticons on the planet at this point

Then I am ignorant so why dont you show me evidence
I have asked for evidence
I would like you to show me that there has been a constant (uniform) rate of decay in radiation from lets say anything more than 1000 years ago

Your link does not prove uniform decay rates, it just assumes it from what I can see.

Where is the evidence, where is the proof that the decay rate is constant?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: borntowatch

You did just quote one person!... You are so intellectually dishonest that it's impossible to have a reasoned conversation with you!

Henry Morris was quote mining a bunch of other people (some real scientists and some young earth supporters) to support his pre-existing views. I only glanced through a few of his sources, and it didn’t take me long to find how he had taken those specific quotes out of context. He is not representing his sources honestly.

This is another creationist tactic; when one source is refuted, bury the opponent in many other sources making a focused discussion meaningless.

Rather than getting me to do all your legwork, how about you point out to me one other author (at a time) that you think is presenting valid evidence for young earth, along with your own opinions on the source?

This is why Morris and other YEC's get so much ridicule... because they seemingly purposefully misinterpret the data to support a preconceived notion.

Their arguments are subjective not objective.

I'm really not going to be bothered to review 10 authors for you when It’s already been done better than I am going to achieve in a forum post (especially since if you don't agree with my review you will ignore it and play the victim card claiming I am attacking people not the science), but here is a list which includes most of the authors in your list, showing how and where they have been quote mined:

The Quote Mine Project

Essentially Morris, and thus yourself, are arguing old arguments that have been thoroughly addressed time and again from multiple angles... and guess what... the creationists have lost these arguments time and again (which is why creation arguments are not accepted facts in the body of knowledge, and why creationists have retreated to their bunker of creation websites to confirm each other’s bias in a closed bubble)... you just don't want to accept it.

How old do you think that the earth is? How far off do you think that current dating techniques are? What’s the error deviation; thousands, millions or billions of years?

Are simple tests of times such as the 3 million year old age of a stalactite incorrect? Can we not count how long it takes secretion to build up, and infer a fairly accurate age of certain geological features?

Again… show me a valid alternative to the accepted age ranges of the geology of the earth?

If you can, I will happily delve into the information… you see I love alternative theories… especially if there is even an iota of evidence that can support them. I love it when the norm is tipped on its head by new evidence… so if you can produce anything… anything at all… that shows that large chunks of our accepted knowledge have to be revised, I will be right there beside you sharing and learning the facts.

Well prove it, you have given me your opinion and that has no value in the context.

I dont have a valid alternative, because I dont, I wont just accept anything offered. It seems you have no choice so you are forced to accept what you are given in a faith like

I have seen a stalactite grow 2 metres in 14 years, then the water dried up and it grew about 1cm in 5 years
We can count how long secretion takes to build up but it only proves that some people havnt got a clue

originally posted by: borntowatch


Yeah its old science isnt it, most probably useless and irrelevant, most probably outdated as science is updated and new discoveries are found, new research.
Can you think of any scientific theories that are around after 40 years that are still relevant, hmmm, not many

Only the ones that have the most evidence and data to support them and are coincidentally some of the most important advancements in science ever undertaken. Contrary to your constant assertions, evolution is one of the most well supported and evidenced theories in the history of science. General Relativity is over 100 years old. Gravity was theorized by Newton well over 300 years ago. Should I go on? Perhaps you could list some theories from the last 40 years that have been shown to be wrong and have been retracted. According to you there are so many of them you should be able to cite 10 or 12 right? I'll even go one step further and give you the last 100 years to work with. Just to clarify, we are talking about scientific theories accepted by the overwhelming majority of practitioner in related fields that have since been found to be false by people in those same fields of study. It should be super east for you right?

The geological time scale is nearly 200 years old and hasnt been changed in any way at all.

Really? The advent of radiometric dating wasn't a huge advancement and just barely 100 years ago? Nothing has changed at all on the last 50 years either? Bull. You made the statement. Back it up. While we're at it, the advent of plate tectonics, the understanding of the formation of oceanic crust? The importance of mid ocean ridges in the previous two concepts? You really don't bother with due diligence do you troll? You just repeat someone else's bull s#.

The Coelacanth is still an index fossil but its not extinct.....go figure

And here we have yet another demonstration of your complete ineptness and total reliance on ad hoc fluff written by YEC proponents and your refusal to use any legitimate science as a source as well as your sad lack of knowledge regarding nearly everything you rant and rave about as you act like the town drunkard.

The Coelacanth was NEVER used as an index fossil. Not now not in the past and probably not even in any alternate universe either.

If the Coelacanth was used as an index fossil which one exactly was it they used? Certainly not the modern ones known since 1938 because they aren't seen anywhere in the fossil record. But such a well researched and brilliant chap as yourself would know that right? I don't need to tell you that today there is only one genus and 2 species of Coelacanth but 70+ MA the name "Coelacanth" was given to fish with similar morphing oval features, it wasn't a name for a specific species of fish. The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures.They were once a successful order consisting of many genera and species. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil." This simple fact in and of itself makes the use of the modern Coelacanth as an index fossil absolutely impossible.

The modern coelacanths, Latimeria spp., are members of the relict taxon of Sarcopterygian fishes, but are distinguishable from species known from the fossil record. This is important. A species that is distinguishable on its morphological characters can be told from related species. The last known fossil species in the clade that includes Latimeria spp. is placed in a different genus. Genus-level differences in morphology indicate that it would be difficult to mistake specimens of each species for the other. And you already know that today's Coelacanths live in deep water whereas those in the fossil record lived in shallow waters and river deltas which demonstrates that in addition to the morphological differences, the older Coelacanths were adapted to a different ecological niche. there are significant differences in the body shape and structure of modern and extinct coelacanth species. These include changes in the number of vertebral arches and substantial differences in skull morphology. The swim bladder of coelacanths has also changed from being filled with oil in the extinct genus Macropoma, to being ossified in modern species, suggesting that the two groups lived in very different environments. Lastly, there are substantial differences in size, with modern coelacanths being three and a half times larger than their closest extinct relative (one and a half vs half a metre).

And I'm certain that someone so well versed in all the fine points of the applicable fields involved is well aware there are several criteria that must be obtained before a particular species can be utilized as an index fossil. It must be morphologically distinctive. This means that the species can be reliably identified and not mistaken for similar species. Defining characters which are not shared with other species enable this to happen. The species must have a limited stratigraphic extent, which means that it reliably appears only between a specified set of horizons, and thus a restricted period of time. A useful index fossil is also geographically widespread. Does that criteria apply to the Coelacanth?

I was hoping for this rebuttal KS, you complaining about a 40 year old source and your geo time scale theory hasnt been changed in nearly 200 years
A 200 year old science with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN THE NATURAL WORLD UNDERPINNING YOUR RELIGION of evolution.

More fluff based solely on the imaginations of anti-intellectual, scientific illiterates. Did you just copy and paste that or did you at least type it yourself after you read it somewhere ?

Brainwashed much?

Mirror mirror on the wall...

Yeah my 40 year old statement about circular reasoning that hasnt ever been refuted by science (cept by your argument that I have read before and hoped would come up again) compared to nearly 200 years old science not replicated in the natural anywhere on earth, you the man.

No, YOU the man ...for not understanding the difference between an outdated citation and a scientific discipline that may have been initiated long ago(hint... Geology has been studied since Ancient Greece at least and became a more formalized area of studied by Muslim scientists over 1000 years ago so 200 years, not so much) has continued to grow and develop and add to its knowledge base, unlike some posters in this thread. What is known about geology and the geologic history of Earth today is nowhere near what was understood 200 or 1000 years ago. To continue insisting that it is the case is so intellectually dishonest that it drips of willful ignorance.

Crikey you havnt a clue have you?

Irony, sweet Irony...

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: borntowatch

Once again, you are ignorant of science and mathematics. The first link is from - as you call it - inception - from the beginning - from naturium - the first element. There aren't enough emoticons on the planet at this point

Then I am ignorant so why dont you show me evidence
I have asked for evidence
I would like you to show me that there has been a constant (uniform) rate of decay in radiation from lets say anything more than 1000 years ago

Your link does not prove uniform decay rates, it just assumes it from what I can see.

Where is the evidence, where is the proof that the decay rate is constant?

The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:

The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.

Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).

The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).

Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).

Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).

The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).

Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202.
Fujii, Yasunori et al., 2000. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nuclear Physics B 573: 377-401.
Greenlees, Paul, 2000. Theory of alpha decay. www.phys.jyu.fi...
Knödlseder, J., 2000. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews 44: 315-320. xxx.lanl.gov...
Krane, Kenneth S., 1987. Introductory Nuclear Physics. New York: Wiley.
Meert, Joe, 2002. Were Adam and Eve toast? gondwanaresearch.com...
Nomoto, K. et al., 1997a. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. xxx.lanl.gov...
Nomoto, K. et al., 1997b. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. xxx.lanl.gov...
Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Nature 391: 51-54. xxx.lanl.gov...
Prantzos, N., 1999. Gamma-ray line astrophysics and stellar nucleosynthesis: perspectives for INTEGRAL. xxx.lanl.gov...
Renne, P. R., W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino, G. Orsi and L. Civetta, 1997. 40Ar/39Ar dating into the historical realm: Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Science 277: 1279-1280.
Shlyakhter, A. I., 1976. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Nature 264: 340. sdg.lcs.mit.edu...
Thielemann, F.-K. et al., 1998. Nucleosynthesis basics and applications to supernovae. In: Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics, J. Hirsch and D. Page, eds., Cambridge University Press, p. 27. xxx.lanl.gov...

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Yeah when it comes to the scientific method and scientific discoveries, creationists and 'creation science' are great sources...

I always go to my favourite creationist website to have them pre-package, slant and sugar-coat the latest in cutting edge scientific findings for me into an easily digestible nugget of sanitized knowledge-lite.

I mean, who wouldn't do that!? People who don't are CRAZY!

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: borntowatch

You did just quote one person!... You are so intellectually dishonest that it's impossible to have a reasoned conversation with you!

Henry Morris was quote mining a bunch of other people (some real scientists and some young earth supporters) to support his pre-existing views. I only glanced through a few of his sources, and it didn’t take me long to find how he had taken those specific quotes out of context. He is not representing his sources honestly.

This is another creationist tactic; when one source is refuted, bury the opponent in many other sources making a focused discussion meaningless.

Rather than getting me to do all your legwork, how about you point out to me one other author (at a time) that you think is presenting valid evidence for young earth, along with your own opinions on the source?

This is why Morris and other YEC's get so much ridicule... because they seemingly purposefully misinterpret the data to support a preconceived notion.

Their arguments are subjective not objective.

I'm really not going to be bothered to review 10 authors for you when It’s already been done better than I am going to achieve in a forum post (especially since if you don't agree with my review you will ignore it and play the victim card claiming I am attacking people not the science), but here is a list which includes most of the authors in your list, showing how and where they have been quote mined:

The Quote Mine Project

Essentially Morris, and thus yourself, are arguing old arguments that have been thoroughly addressed time and again from multiple angles... and guess what... the creationists have lost these arguments time and again (which is why creation arguments are not accepted facts in the body of knowledge, and why creationists have retreated to their bunker of creation websites to confirm each other’s bias in a closed bubble)... you just don't want to accept it.

How old do you think that the earth is? How far off do you think that current dating techniques are? What’s the error deviation; thousands, millions or billions of years?

Are simple tests of times such as the 3 million year old age of a stalactite incorrect? Can we not count how long it takes secretion to build up, and infer a fairly accurate age of certain geological features?

Again… show me a valid alternative to the accepted age ranges of the geology of the earth?

If you can, I will happily delve into the information… you see I love alternative theories… especially if there is even an iota of evidence that can support them. I love it when the norm is tipped on its head by new evidence… so if you can produce anything… anything at all… that shows that large chunks of our accepted knowledge have to be revised, I will be right there beside you sharing and learning the facts.

Well prove it, you have given me your opinion and that has no value in the context.

I dont have a valid alternative, because I dont, I wont just accept anything offered. It seems you have no choice so you are forced to accept what you are given in a faith like

I have seen a stalactite grow 2 metres in 14 years, then the water dried up and it grew about 1cm in 5 years
We can count how long secretion takes to build up but it only proves that some people havnt got a clue

When you can demonstrate that you understand what a constant is in mathematics, then I'll go into detail. Until then, this is all I have to say:

A constant is a mathematical construct derived from experimental data. You don't understand experimental data either so it's a waste of time developing that topic.

An acceptable error rate for any natural process is determined by the absolute value of two measured values by their average. This again you won't understand.

You know, your head is so filled with Creationist crap that I hope you donate it to science one day. I'm sure that the neurological circuitry would be of interest to many cognitive scientists. Hell, it may wind up in a jar of formalin at the Smithsonian! Just think of it - you'd be a star!!

a reply to: borntowatch

And you might do well to review Peter Var's references. On the other hand, sometimes too much knowledge can be dangerous. I take that back. Don't read them....

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

You are being overly generous with "latest" neighbor, most creationist sites tend to lag a decade.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

You are being overly generous with "latest" neighbor, most creationist sites tend to lag a decade.

Well exactly. It's cutting edge to them though. Finger on the pulse.... of the world of 1966.