Wednesday, February 25, 2015

... on Genesis and Evolution among Myths and Deconstructing a Piece of Rhetoric

For the following video, the main thrust goes to Kent Hovind and his partner, not to me. But two of the things their opponents said (right at the beginning) merit a little more attention than I expect them to give it (I haven't heard all the video yet):

Debate #3: Genesis - History or Myth?
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prbTv_oFRLI


I
19:33 Genesis is just one of many kinds of creation stories? Well, goes for evolution too.

If we look at content, it is actually evolution which is closer to Pagan stories and Genesis that stands out, together with Plato. Plato = Plato in his dialogue Timaeus.

Abiogenesis? Well, in Greek myth you have Chaos producing Gaia, Ether, Nyx and Erebos. In Nordic myth you have Fire and Ice meeting over Ginnungagap, and producing the cow Audhumbla licking a salty stone and the hermaproditic giant Ymer.

Major change over time, from worse to better, from uglier to nobler? Well, apparently Gaia could produce pretty monstruous offspring, even her sons with Uranus, the Titans, were pretty bad, and then a Titan couple produces the first gods. In Nordic myth you have Ymer's grandchildren getting somewhere near good, like giving a wife to:

  • Bure - the man Audhumbla licked from the stone
  • Bor - his son
  • perhaps Odin as well, though Fricco could be a cousin through an unmentioned brother to Bor (who would then also be [the husband of] a giantess)


And like producing Ymer's grandchildren Bergelmer and his wife, who were spared. Sure, spared in a Flood - Nordic Myth is less away from Genesis in that respect. So is Greek, though Flood has another place in it.

But Flood like special creation of man are events, the other aspects are aspects of metaphysics. A New Age atheist might squeeze in World Wide Flood (though not many would) and might squeeze in a special creation of man by ancient astronauts, but neither of them would be a divine event like in Genesis, even if there were a match of storyline detail.

II
28:56 "I recommend that we hold off, until we get some education in biology, to evaluate some of the things being made up here today, I think it is very hard for you or I to make sense of these complicated themes about vestigial organs ..."

If we take the words at face value, it is a recommendation.

As such it could be topped by an equal recommendation to get some education in biology (as in what is going on observedly right now in fauna, flora and bodily functions of man) before we evaluate these complicated themes with geological column, radioactive dating, fossils, tree of life, abiogenesis, tiktaalik, australopithecus afarensis, horses developing from smaller animals, birds evolving from dinos via archaeopteryx, all that - except for those of us who decide with a view to a higher and more sure discipline, theology. For the others, taking time to evaluate claims of mind being or not being a biological, chemical, physical brain function vs. a substance other than physics might also be a good idea.

But I said it was a recommendation taken at the face value. Perhaps it may be taken, perhaps it was even meant as an intimidation, as a "trust the scientists on where they seem right, and if they seem wrong, leave that to the scientists to sort out those more complicated themes". If that is anything like the real meaning of his words, well, in that case they are very antiscientific.

They are basically the words a Catholic under normal circumstances (like not after Vatican II, but before) would take to the consensus of Catholic bishops under the papacy, under the successive Popes one has lived under or has historic knowledge of. As an Irishman, if I detect the accent right, the speaker would perhaps know that attitude. And there is justification for it, like not running after every Protestant who has it figured out what cult Jeremiah meant with "queen of heaven"* ... when it comes to science, we are not dealing with the eternal salvation and damnation and hence are not obliged to be all that cautious. Moreoever, the collective of scientists has not the promises that St Peter and the Apostles and through them Popes and Bishops had from Christ, so we are perhaps less well advised to just trust scientists.

* The Puritans had it figured out wrongly, by the way. God may have hated Ishtar as "queen of heaven" among Canaaneans precisely because she is such an opposite to the real Queen of Heaven, the Blessed Virgin, His Blessed Mother and Handmaid.

III
30:11 "or even if it was demonstrably true, that I could prove it to you"

What a little snake tongue!

Demonstrable truth is precisely what one should believe for. He tries to deny that because "truth is too heavy" - no, it's not.

30:20 Ah, he doesn't need proof for accepting what textbooks say in biology? Or is he meaning he does not need the textbooks just to claim they have proof? Once again, his words can be taken two ways.

30:26 "that's a logical term, better left to the logicians" (legicians?)

Every sane man is a logician when it comes to truth.

30:33 "what we are talking about here is confirming a theory"

OK, but confirming means gathering a lot of evidence which is at least half proving it and definitely nowhere infirming it. And infirming a theory means disproving it or proving its opposite. Which brings us back to logic and truth. Nice try to camouflage the logic you use under "confirming a theory" while attacking the logic someone else uses as "truth is too heavy a word" and such and such a theme being too complex. Nice try, but not with me.

31:02 "even an account like Genesis could explain everything" (all the natural processes you will observe in your life)

Fine admission.

31:13 "we have very limited access to the universe, we haven't seen it all"

OK, means there might be things in it we have not observed. Not that the things we have observed are not in it.

[Nor, though I missed pointing it out, that our explanations would have to cover the kind of things we have no experience of at all.]

31:37 "if you are going to admit microevolution, I think you'll have to admit macro"

I am waiting for a nice little refutation of that from the other team. For one thing, there might be a barrier, like mammalian chromosome numbers. For another, macro implies a need for very long periods of time and there is no proof of that time, maybe even some against it.

Mammalian chromosome numbers:
Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html


Creation vs. Evolution : Telocentric Chromosomes of Rhinoceros, check ... Rock Wallaby, check ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/01/telocentric-chromosomes-of-rhinoceros.html


Lack of proof for "geologic column":
Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html


No "distant starlight problem" for a young universe:
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/11/distant-starlight-problem-answered-by.html
and a few more.

31:42 "maybe you should believe it because the vast majority of informed reasonable professional people do"

No, since that is unverifiable. Vaster or slenderer majority is unverifiable within certain limits of statistics done and decided. How many of those are in that respect informed and reasonable and how many are only doing what he is recommending non-biologists to do, relying on "vast majority of informed reasonable professionals" is unverifiable too. How many of them need it in their professions is unverifiable too. At least for the work they are doing.

How many has it been made a social necessity for?

How many linguists have a diploma after saying in class "I don't think Proto-Indo-European was spoken 6000 years ago, back then it was before the Flood and everyone spoke Hebrew"? It is an intelligent position, historically, theologically. But not an excellent way to make a carreer.

From that view point, these words of his are also a kind of intimidation.

32:52 "because all the scientific boards and all the people we trust to cure our diseases"

Meaning you can not get through Med School unless you are a Neodarwinist?

How horrible, if true.

But I don't think it is, and I am certain a few decades ago it wasn't. I am even more certain, it is no use for a doctor. Nor is Heliocentrism, as Sherlock Holmes (modelled on a doctor) told Dr Watson.

"and to inquire into the natural world"

What if I trust CMI or Sungenis to do that?

By the way, after exposing "maybe you should believe it because the vast majority of informed reasonable professional people do" for a minute or two, masterly, he does an even more masterly move : he ditches the argument. He has been intimidating and trying to be impressive and he ditches that to the relief of hearers. BUT when he ditches it, he gives a Parthian Arrow to the other team, since not admitting it was an "argumentum baculinum" but reclassifying it as an "argumentum ex auctoritate". And his last argument, he thinks when we decide we will agree with him, that sounds like an induction script from a hypnotist.

Monday, February 23, 2015

Looking for "... on Greece and IMF"?

Back here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Greece and IMF
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2015/02/on-greece-and-imf.html

Continued debate from ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material (Third sequel)

1) ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material, 2) Continued debate ... (first sequel), 3) Continued debate ... (second sequel), 4) Continued debate ... (Third sequel), 5) Continued debate ... sequel four

I blocked the lout
So I cannot now go back and look at where he said all I answer, especially I am not finding the link I will refer to in β.

I am here in α concerned with a comment starting "sit bonum, tempora volvunt" which unlike the other things may have a grammatical meaning like "let it be good, times change" or more freely "let it be enough, times change".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
α
Tempora si volvunt, veritas tamen manet.

"So now you are saying your argument was something else?"

Not than what it was, but than what you got it to.

"You are whining about Argon and the lack of constants, what am I missing?"

You must have confused :

1) my "claim" about Argon absorption into sample being a possibility relating to the K-Ar dating
with
2) my "claim" about C14 level in atmosphere having certainly had an initial buildup when it was very far from constant, and that buildup period falling into recent times being a possibility relating to C14 dating
with
3) my "claim" about isotopes with higher half lives than C14 not having the half lives properly measured being another possibility relating to both K-Ar dating and the two U-Pb datings
with
4) my "claim" about some Pb having been there from start in U-Pb and Th-Pb datings being a possibility relating to U-Pb datings and to Th-Pb dating

AND missed that you are the one claiming each of these methods gives fairly reliable results for "older than Biblical creation" dates. I am in each case claiming an alternative possibility for the "age measures". You seem to prefer not getting it right.

"Are you now going back and editing your prior claims? I think you are."

Ah, no. Did I mention a man with your attitude towards God might be a lout towards men too? You are acting it.

"Aetas enim hujus mundi, metus imbecillam, istos. Spera in intellegere facientes magnitudo et tempus agere volentibus investigare et discernere uerum a falso."

Did you get the Latin phrases via Google Translate? They are not correct grammatically.

["since the age of this earth, fear weak [not coordinated], those [not coordinated withb either]" plus "spera in" takes a noun, not an infinitive like "intelligere" ...]

"Maybe these [blip]ers can convince you. Since actual textbooks don't mean anything to you. I don't agree with them either, because Jesus was full of [blip], just like you."

Textbooks mean more than they.

Really. They are really ignoring data when it comes to Bible and tradition, they are what I call Modernists.

"At least these people are talking in your dialect,"

Nope. I am an ex-Evolutionist, but never in my life was Modernist.

"good luck getting through any of the text with your ability to ignore good data."

Ah, thanks for the qualification "good" - you admit I am not ignoring the data you consider bad.

"And I will know if you are a true student of latin or just a Google Translate honk, if you cannot decipher my message."

You like projecting your own faults on others right? What you wrote was not grammatical Latin.

"So will every other catholic school kid."

There is at least one Latinist reading our thread on the blog message, I hope. A real one.

"At first you were marginally entertaining, but now you are the Creation Argument's White Ford Bronco, driving in a low-speed pursuit. Al Cowlings wants to stop and drop you off on the side of the road. You should do yourself a favor and get out of the Bronco."

"Run Juice Run!"

Oh dear ... you can spare yourself trouble by keeping out of this thread yourself. I might even block you.

"Amino acid racemization dating is a technique that is used to date fossilized objects up to several million years in age. The naturally occurring amino acid molecules usually possess a carbon centre with four different groups joining it; a hydrogen atom, the amino group, the acid group (hence the name of the class of molecule) and a side chain, which is what distinguishes amino acids. In three dimensional space, such a molecular topology can occupy one of two configurations. Convention labels these as D or L, which are referred to as stereoisomers and are essentially mirror images of each other. The ratio of these two isomers is initially unequal. With only one exception, naturally occurring amino acids used in polypeptide synthesis are in the L form. Over time this will decay to a more balanced state in a process called racemization, where the ratio between L and D stereoisomers will be equal (a racemic mixture)."

I was aware of racemic mixtures not being the ones in use in live organisms.

"Measuring the degree of racemization and other known quantities can show an estimated age of the sample. This is measured fairly unambiguously by the fact that different stereoisomers rotate plane polarised light in opposite directions (it is this interaction that determines the D and L labels) and so a ratio can be determined by contrasting an unknown sample with a pure D or L sample and a racemic mixture. By measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, objects can be dated up to several million years old."

Supposing you know the speed of racemisation.

Which would need you to know how old samples of such and such racemity are, before you can use it to measure age of samples with unknown age.

Again, not at all a circle free method. K-Ar, not circle free, racemicity oh, sorry, racemity dating, not circle free, I think I had another one you had already tried in vain ... ah yes, the "time it takes to make crude oil"-method. Not circle free either.

β
Btw, read the link anyway, found the outreach in bottom portion most annoying while the three answers don't adress the fact CMI gave a new misdating from 1996 lava flow. If pyroxene means solidified lava, one of their answers goes down here, as I mentioned earlier: DOME-1P pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6 (2,200,000 - 3,400,000 years old)

Taken from this article:

CMI : Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
by Steven A. Austin
http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates


Dr. Steven A. Austin also is a geologist, btw:

CMI : Dr. Steven A. Austin
http://creation.com/dr-steven-a-austin


PLUS the problem of very long halflives, measuring those beyond C14:

New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/01/quarterlife-is-bad-term.html


Note:
change of subject. In the following comment.
auchucknorris
+Hans-Georg Lundahl sooo your still ignoring that the univers HAS to be 11 billion years old because the radiation from the bing bang is 11 billion light years away??

"Jeez S. Christ"
+auchucknorris Hans is ignoring the solid and incontrovertible work of the whole of the scientific community, mostly because he thinks he is reading and comprehending things like Latin, Chemistry, Biology, Bio-Decomposition, Organic Decay, Radio-Carbon Dating, yet he is not in the least of abilities able to grasp that these stupid theories he espouses have been debunked, destroyed, and laid in the ground so long ago. So long ago in fact, that we have forgotten the arguments, since they are so unnecessary in our time.

He has some idea that because he has personally observed the chemical exchange between Argon and anything Greek with 3 syllables, he may now speak as an expert ombudsman on the realities of physics.

He tried some Anglicized Latin in a silly God-Promoting preface to one of his dumbcunt screeds, I sent him a deeply grammatical challenge in Latin which only someone NOT fluent in Latin would consider gibberish, and he fell into the trap. 7th Grade Catholic School Latin I say (and I'm hardly a master). [That was not a lie.]

If he is that weak in Latin, and that weak in Science, I think he should be perfect as our next President or Speaker of The House.

[I sense I am dealing with a black man who overemphasises status and on top of that overidentifies education, smartness and status. But there is some grasp of realities as to contemporary politics, perhaps.]

auchucknorris
posted at 15:55 (symbolical?)
because then that would mean that EVEN what hes saying now ALSO is inherently incorrect (not to mention any real scientist will laugh in his face for the shit he spews) but even in his twisted logic it HAS to be incorrect because of just one tiny simple other fact.. could bring up heaps more but like i said the simplest is the best with these people, seeing as they dont even understand what they are talking about.. or they would know what they are saying HAS to be wrong.. so telling them how they are wrong on something as complex as elemental decay, they wont even graps that you've proved them wrong and just frustrate your self... youll have better luck teaching a plant to read

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You mean teach a plant to reed? Would succed with some plants, namely with reeds. Even don't take all that much teaching, right?

"not to mention any real scientist will laugh in his face for the shit he spews"

How come Brooks (who is a real geologist, on her saying) left the conversation? Maybe she (Brooks is a girls' name, right?) didn't like loosing an argument in science but preferred leaving me to hecklers?

"Jeez S. Christ"
comment landed on : 17:17 (symbolical?)
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Who are you trying to sell these horrible theories too? Only a simpleton would follow you past the first link. I mean, you are even dumber than John Morris Pendleton. Are you Ian Juby?

[I never answered him, but I am not and I respect Ian Juby more than him.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
α
@auchucknorris, light years away, you said? And Big Bang? Now, I don't rely on the guys selling those as facts. There is for instance the question how you measure light years distances.

Come back when you have a little info on that, meanwhile, let's take radioactive dating.

A pesky little fact for you: directly measuring a speed is best done while it stays within optimal limits. Precisely as with a curve. Too fast is hard to distinguish from instantaneous, like too curved is hard to optically distinguish from single point. Too slow is hard to distinguish from not moving at all, like too huge a radius is hard to distinguish from straight line. You see someone walking or running, you can "measure" the speed directly. But a bullet is too fast and the sun is too slow. For a bullet, you have to use a long distance so the path takes a second or two. For the sun you have to compare to objects that are really still (like horizon) - by looking at it again.

So, how does this apply to half lives with samples observed decaying in a lab?

Wiki : list of radioactive isotopes by half-life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_isotopes_by_half-life


Take 103 seconds:

isotope/days/10^3 seconds
iodine-131/8.02/693 (8 days, 0 hours, 28 minutes, 48 seconds)
thulium-167/9.25/799 (9 days, 6 hours)

No competent lab assistant could possibly give thulium 167 same half life as iodine 131! A small sample that can be weighed, a scale with a fine trigger for when weight falls below a certain amount, another scale which is ordinary and untriggered but also fine tuned so you can measure up the exact double weight, a timer ... you can't miss it.

When it comes to H-7 or He-5, I am pretty sure they don't use that method.

half-life 1−24 seconds : 23 of them for H-7 and 760 of them for He-5.

Having any doubts about that one?

Now, lets go a bit higher up in half lives ... 109 seconds ...

isotope/years/109 seconds
americium-241/432.2/13.64 (432 years, 2 months, 12 days)

If you want to use sketched out method to be so exact, well, I suppose you may have started looking when Americium-241 was discovered and come back 432 years later ... only, it is NOT yet 432 years since Americium was discovered. But maybe you can count speed of the Geiger-meter ticking - comparing it with what you have otherwise. The half life measure is indirect again. But not impossible.

[By the way, if it were wrong, we would not be dating anything wrong, the isotope is used in smoke detectors, not in dating methods.]

Now, look at this:

isotope/years/109 seconds
carbon-14/5,730/181
americium-243/7,370/233

I would not bet speed of Geiger-meter ticking would be so very different for these two that you can really measure even that.

Now, for C-14 I proposed a little trick somewhere (I'll know if you looked it up or not when I consult the comments previous to last, since I did not read all before an internet session stopped and now is another one ...)

Take an organic object 5,730 years old, you must be sure of the date (with a hundred years or so - I have also seen 5,690 mentioned, if I recall correctly). If the object shows half the C14 level of today's atmosphere, this means half life and C14 level back then are correct. That is 3,715 BC ... what exact objects do you have that are undisputedly dated (independently of C14 of course) to that date? None. But, we can take half of half life too. 2,865 BP = 850 B. C. - Lifetime of Homer? But we have perhaps not identified Homer's grave? If we can get one object, or the more the better, undisputedly dated to exactly that date, we can test C14 from there. Half a half life means it should have about 71% left.

Or if objects from back then that are really well dated historically are too scarce, a quarter of a half life. If C14 level was correct and half life is correct, an object from back then should have 84% of the C14 level. 1432 years and 6 months ago = 582 years and six months A. D. Or 580 - 585 A.D. Now there is no problem.

With enough measures, we can get a timeline back in history (recorded such) for the last two thousand years of C14 level reasonably stable and C14 half life known.

Further back [with C-14, that is] the problem is not the half life, but if we are or are not past the initial build up.

The ones just past C-14 are: plutonium-240 - 6,563 years to plutonium-239 - 24,110 years, reaching past : thorium-229, americium-243, curium-245, curium-250, tin-126, niobium-94.

I suppose one of these came into an artefact and that was dated by C14 for other parts and ... no? Not that many ancient Egyptian artefacts with americium or thorium? One might have hope for tin-126 - supposing there was no other tin in it to start with?

Are you starting to sense a kind of problem?

We have hardly used anything of this to calibrate past historic objects dated with C14. And if you try to top with prehistoric objects dated with C14, that gives way at the point where safe historic datings cannot be made with records, due to initial buildup problem for C14.

"The uranium–lead dating method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 704 million years."

"As time passes after the formation of such a material, uranium-234 in the sample, with a half-life of 245,000 years, decays to thorium-230. Thorium-230 is itself radioactive with a half-life of 75,000 years, so instead of accumulating indefinitely (as for instance is the case for the uranium-lead system), thorium-230 instead approaches secular equilibrium with its radioactive parent uranium-234. At secular equilibrium, the number of thorium-230 decays per year within a sample is equal to the number of thorium-230 produced, which also equals the number of uranium-234 decays per year in the same sample."

With these kinds of half lives, it is purely ridiculous to say we have even indirectly observed even a quarter or an eighth of a half life. I e, the half life cannot be said to be safely measured, and I do not mean it could be a few days off.

Now, what about K-Ar dating?

isotope/109 years/1015 seconds
potassium-40/1.277/40.3

1,277,000,000 years ... oh yeah, right, we must have been able to measure that accurately! Not.

β
Then someone is relying on no Latinist (or no honest one) reading this thread. Guess who?

γ
By now, that guy has shown as total a disregard for argument as for the honour of God or of adversaries in the debate.

I blocked him after his last comment.

auchucknorris
+Hans-Georg Lundahl who me? for asking a simple question that doesnt agree with your WRONG stance on the age of the earth? how is light from 11 billion light years away (that came from and proves of the big bang theory. a;lso proving you wrong just because this light is from the one thing your saying didnt happen, because god did it ten thousand years ago) not proof that things existed up to 11 billion years ago and 10,000 years is not even close to the creation of existence.. even like the closest starts light is older than that

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, +auchucknorris, the other guy. "Jeez ..." sth. To you I had previously given a much longer response. How about clicking in order to see previous comments on thread and not just watch the last one? The one for you was before the one for him. As to you, I tried to keep the discussion on the radioactive methods you have as yet not defended BEFORE we get into x billion light years away, which yu haven't substantiated either (you have of course said they are x billion ligght years away, usual number I keep seeing is not 11 but 13.5, big deal and it would follow light shone from them x billion light years ago, but you have still not substantiated claim) since you have not shown that the light sources in question are that far off. If you give up on radiometric dating, you can of course change subject to defending that.

Btw, closest stars, as astronomers count according to a system you have not proven so far, would be about 4 light years away. Not beyond 10,000.

[Linked here to show him how comments are really sorted.]

auchucknorris
+Hans-Georg Lundahl lol because this was your response

" light years away, you said? And Big Bang? Now, I don't rely on the guys selling those as facts. There is for instance the question how you measure light years distances"

lol and if you dont even know lightyears is a messurment of distance your a moron, and its not being sold as fact, it is fact.. beleive it or not what the human race considers fact isnt souly based on what you do and dont know, we dont ask "what does hans think about this thing thats backed up by irrefutable proof" "nah sorry it doesnt agree with his beliefs so hes still got his head in the sand so sorry cant be a fact yet" even tho that reality would be verry convenient for u lol and how to you messure?!?!? its called red shift you moron!! its not debatable!! not to mention we use regular old geometry to back up and verify these readings, so i know YOU dont know shit but its still proven, regardless of how ignorant YOU are... even with out red shift if you ever did school and triangle geomotry you do the same shit of sin cos tan to work out the missing side.. unless geometry is wrong... which it isnt, we can still get star distance much greater than 10,000 light years, and considering how many galixies there are with the un-fathomable amount of stars in each, to even suggest geometry is wrong and ALLLL those different galaxies are within 10,000 light years is laughable, even if the stars were squeezed together as tight as you could pack em its not even in the same ball park, you just HUGELY underestimate the size and scale of the universe, in every direction in every space of sky the universe is completely blanketed in galaxies, you look at the tiniest pin point your probs looking at more galaxies than you could imagine, each one of them in its self is 100,000's of light years across, and each one of them is so far away form the next even the closest are invisible to the human eye due to redshift, it is UNDENIABLE they are greater than 10,000 light years away,

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I take it you have tacitly given up on radiometric dating, then, since you don't mention it.

"lol and if you dont even know lightyears is a messurment of distance" - if I hadn't known that, how come I used (and you even quoted) "There is for instance the question how you measure light years distances"

Let's see if you are at least trying to be informative ...

"beleive it or not what the human race considers fact isnt souly based on what you do and dont know, we" - this was not informative, it was just misidentifying your set with "the human race" as if I were an elf or dawrf or hobbit or sth.

"how to you messure?!?!? its called red shift you moron!!" - last time I checked, red shift was foremost concerned with speed of expansion, and that only if attributin it to Doppler effect. How do you get a distance measure from that?

"not to mention we use regular old geometry to back up and verify these readings" - how about being more precise, let's take triangulation ... how many angles and distances have we got on different world views, and how many do we need to make a distance measure?

"so i know YOU dont know shit but its still proven, regardless of how ignorant YOU are... even with out red shift if you ever did school and triangle geomotry you do the same shit of sin cos tan to work out the missing side.. unless geometry is wrong" - oh dear, it seems you confused red shift with the parallax claim ... I am not claiming geoemtry is wrong, I am again asking (has nothing to do with red shift so far): how many sides and angles do we have on different world views and how many do we need? You DO remember high school geometry enough for that, don't you?

Here, let me refresh your memory of good old Soh-Cah-Toa a bit:

deretour : Trigonometry, principles, astronomic applications
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/trigonometry-principles-astronomic.html


"unless geometry is wrong... which it isnt, we can still get star distance much greater than 10,000 light years"

Oh, sure. To get 4 light years (supposing we do get them) the parallax angle (suppose the angle is parallactic and no proper movement) is 0.75 arc seconds.

Let me spell it out for you. If you have two cities on opposite sides of the equator, the vertical line in each of them will be 180° to the vertical in the other (i e the up of one will be the down of the other and vice versa). Add another city on the equator - equidistant from the two - and the angle between its verticals and either of the other will be 90°.

Those distances are really far.

Now exactly what kind of distance on earth do you need so that verticals in each place will be at 1 arc second (more than the largest parallax angle)? It is about 30 meters. That is how small the angle is. For 10,000 light years, the angle is very much smaller even than that.

Now, guess what? So small angles are not very easy to measure.

Perhaps you'll say I am making shit up ... no, wait a second.

360° = all equator around full circle = 6378.1 km (equatorial radius)*2*pi = 40,074,784 m


1° = 40,074,784 : 360 = 111,318 m
1 arc minute = 111,318 : 60 = 1,855 m
1 arc second = 1,855 : 60 = 30.92 m.

Two verticals are 30.92 m distant on Earth's surface and meet (as all verticals do) in Earth's centre. That is a very skinny angle. Not easy to measure at all.

If you doubt that, it is you who are saying geometry is wrong, not I.

auchucknorris
+Hans-Georg Lundahl 1st of all we dont use the the width of the earth we use the width of the orbit of the earth around the sun and just because you cant preceive it to be "easy" doesnt mean we cant, because yes.. yes we can, computers mixed with high powered telescopes easily and accurately, its not some kid with a protractor looking up at the night sky these are experts in their feild with very expensive high tech equipment, humans have some very amazing machinery, if you ACTUALLY dropped this shit and started LEARNING real science you'd be amazed and very interested, its so much more fulfilling knowing REAL truth rather than living in a made up reality were every ones against you because they know more than you.

also if you do learn it all you come the conclusion there is a very real chance there is a god, but you also realize its existence is something no human mind can even come close to fathoming and to assume some people 3000 years ago, stealing from other religions have no clue what they are talking about what it wants and what it did is rediculous and almost insulting to this being to describe it in such a way. it didnt take 10 days to make an earth a sun and some start, no it took litterally no time (because it created time as well in that instant) at all to spew forth the seeds for the entire universe and all its 100 BILLION galaxies each with 400 billion stars, and not just one planet with life but who even knows how many planets out there have life, more than you can image, each of them so far away from one another in both space and that will exist in different time periods separated by billions of years the real universe and REAL existence shits on your book, which is almost a spit in the face of any REAL creator, assuming it cares or even can care because its existence is so far away from our understanding of existence, saying it has emotions and human related existences filled with wants and cares doesn't even make sense once you get out of the 3rd dimension, were there isnt a future to want something in because time is a space like up down left and right, not how we perceive it from our 3 dimensional cage on the thin slice of wave we ride through it.

considering how long life takes to form and and planets start to cool for the seeds of single cellular life and our suns age from the beginning of the universe even tho there are potentially life forms billions of years more advanced than us, we are VERY well placed to be one of the most dominant and long lasting existences in universe, its still VERY early on, in the universes story, and as long as we dont kill each other theres a very good chance we can at least survive anything thing the universe throws at us (if not have the abilities to completely protect our selves by the time any thing catastrophic comes for us, you should be proud to be apart of it and the discoveries that can never be made again that are being made right now, its the greatest time in human history ever and you get to whiteness it and instead you are closing your eyes for a book that if you actually learnt about the universe youde know your wasting what very little time you have trying to slow down these discoveries and what they bring, but we need to work alot on the whole not killing each other thing before we keep inventing more ways to kill each other

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"1st of all we dont use the the width of the earth"

Studiously missing a point, aren't you?

I gave an idea of how narrow the angle is and youo try to ignore it and pretend I misunderstood.

"we use the width of the orbit of the earth around the sun"

Supposing that is how it works.

What is YOUR proof for Heliocentrism?

"and just because you cant preceive it to be "easy" doesnt mean we cant, because yes.. yes we can, computers mixed with high powered telescopes easily and accurately, its not some kid with a protractor looking up at the night sky these are experts in their feild with very expensive high tech equipment, humans have some very amazing machinery"

Sorry, but either the machinery works like a protractor in principle, then the angles for "4 to 10 light years" are very narrow and the angles for billions of light years impossibly narrow even for the machinery - OR it works by comparing the things, and then it is assumed most stars show no parallax and if they really do all parallax values are in trouble. Have you heard of 63 Ophiuchi? Well, you should take a look.

"if you ACTUALLY dropped this shit and started LEARNING real science you'd be amazed and very interested, its so much more fulfilling knowing REAL truth rather than living in a made up reality were every ones against you because they know more than you."

I do not think everyone is against me, but those who think they know "more than I" (really know I am wrong, which is another thing) and do not have the patience to get to grips with scientific and philosophical problems, which obviously includes you, those ARE against my honour, independence, dignity in discussion and a few more.

Ditch it, jerk!

"also if you do learn it all you come the conclusion there is a very real chance there is a god, but you also realize its existence is something no human mind can even come close to fathoming and to assume some people 3000 years ago, stealing from other religions have no clue what they are talking about what it wants and what it did is rediculous and almost insulting to this being to describe it in such a way."

Did I tell you I was interested in your take on un-Christian spirituality?

No. Ditch it.

"its the greatest time in human history ever and you get to whiteness it and instead you are closing your eyes for a book that if you actually learnt about the universe youde know your wasting what very little time you have trying to slow down these discoveries and what they bring, but we need to work alot on the whole not killing each other thing before we keep inventing more ways to kill each other"

Did I tell you I was interested in your take on Apocalyptics?

No. Ditch it.

auchucknorris
+Hans-Georg Lundahl lol you say impossibly narrow and yet offer no evidence, sorry mate saying "it cant be possible because i say so" isnt a valid argument, try again kid, offer proof it cant be done, you give me nothing to argue besides that your just making shit up and its laughable at this point.. because the answer is yes.. yes they can messure these tiny degrees, technically its a protractor.. that measures fractions of a degree... thats how it passed peer review.. thats why no one who actually knows what they are talking about would even bother arguing, your ignorance isnt proof of any thing other than your ignorance on the topic of which you speak my friend so either offer proof or kindly shut up

ManDeeDooPwee
It's not the "deepness" of the ground. It's the type of rock that it's found in. The earth has had many layers and each layer is of a different time and composition. Through the movement of the tectonic plates, those layers get pushed up and around. Fossils can be found on the surface. I have personally found many fossils of sea creatures on the tops of hills way above sea level in the Hill Country of Texas.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
α
"Fossils can be found on the surface. I have personally found many fossils of sea creatures on the tops of hills way above sea level in the Hill Country of Texas."

Thank you!

What do you think of my analysis here:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html


β
"you say impossibly narrow and yet offer no evidence"

You couldn't hit evidence as big as a barn if you had three feet to aim from.

I gave you mathematical evidence, you didn't want it. Shove off.

auchucknorris
+Hans-Georg Lundahl lol no you gave me wrong fault math assuming we can only use refrence points of 30 meters away.. when thats not even close or related to how we measure it so its VOID moron because its made up 

[For those not quite following the argument with the full attention participants are assumed to have, I did not say our reference points are 30 meters from each other for α Centauri, I am quite aware Heliocentrics consider we have an Astronomic Unit apart from Earth position A to Earth position B : my point is, angle we are supposed to be measuring at α Centauri between two positions of Earth rather than at Earth between two positions of α Centauri is not greater than the angle at centre of Earth to two point on surface 30 meters apart. Which is a very slender angle, a very slender triangle, even with the supposed base of 2 AU. 2, not just one btw. But on top of confusing that issue, he never even tried to uphold Heliocentric interpretation of phenomena as the one corresponding to reality and "on" which one "can count." Didn't he comprehend I was challenging it?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
sic scripsit (I am blocking the guy)

[did, can't access the thread, waiting for answer if any from ManDeeDooPwee]

MOUNTAINOUS
carbon dating i would assume. not sure.

[Like ManDeeDooPwee above this is in answer to original question by Belegur Mastema : How do they know the deepness of the ground determines the age the fossil comes from?]
omitting (for now)
two guys who were basically quarrelling (might get in later if anyone answers them and I answer that). 

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+MOUNTAINOUS "carbon dating i would assume. not sure. "

You assume wrong.

+ManDeeDooPwee explained the reasoning very well:

"It's not the "deepness" of the ground. It's the type of rock that it's found in. The earth has had many layers and each layer is of a different time and composition."

The problem with this is : how does she know the types of rock are millions of years apart ratehr than coming from one and same flood?

The fact is, when a fossil is dated as Cretaceous or Permian or Carboniferous (including carbon) carbon dating is routinely not used. When it is used, you get other dates than those assumed for Cretaceous or Permian or Carboniferous.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Continued debate from ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material I (second sequel)

1) ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material, 2) Continued debate ... (first sequel), 3) Continued debate ... (second sequel), 4) Continued debate ... (Third sequel), 5) Continued debate ... sequel four

Before I looked
at the following comment from the man whose profile name reads blasphemously "Jeez S. Christ", I answered an older comment by a more honest person, as you will see, after this comment, when mine starts in a reply not yet concerning the foul probable Communist or Freemason.

"Jeez S. Christ"
+Hans-Georg Lundahl It's amazing how you produce very easily debunked claims and act as though you are standing on a rock solid argument. The degree to which you have convinced yourself is dangerously insane. Where are these books you read? Where are the laboratories that conclude this work you are doing is correct?

Show me one accredited scientist that backs up anything you are touting as fact.

The Russian petroleum research is highly questionable and has no real basis in fact. There is no independent support for the statement that there is "new oil" or "young oil". My statement about petroleum should end your whole Young Earth Wet Dream, it should easily dismantle, by use of the properties of BASIC HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL CHEMISTRY that the materials involved in producing petroleum products are in fact BEYOND ANCIENT. Why are there no cave paintings of Dinosaurs? Cave paintings in Lascaux have been effortlessly dated to be in existence for at least 20,000 years (and I am being kind, they are much older than that). Where were the Dinosaurs?

Just for laughs, what do you believe the World population was in 46 b.c.? By your claims and explanations, it would have been no more than 3,000,000.

Syria alone had over 3,000,000 people in 46 b.c. (Roman Census) and this is a solid fact.

If your Creation occurred less than 10,000 years ago, there would only be a few hundred million people alive right now. Especially if all but 8 were wiped out in between that time and now.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Basically the crux of my argument, is that you are:

  • A) insane
  • B) cannot properly read books
  • C) extremely disloyal to truth
  • D) possibly the most motivated troll on Earth.


Hans Georg Lundahl
+Belegur Mastema -
"If they can date volcanic eruptions thanks to the radioactive decay, you can assume the organisms caught in the lava are of the same age."

The problem is, they can't.

Have you heard of Mount St Helen's recent eruption and its vast misdating?

Wiki : Mount St. Helens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens


Wiki : 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helen's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens


Hmm, for some reason the article on the eruption has no reference to the dating. Same goes for the article on the volcano itself.

Here I do find an article by Creationists. Do you think the source is biassed? Here it is anyway:

CMI : Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
by Steven A. Austin
http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates


They give a list of K-Ar datings (Potassium-Argon datings), measured in Ma (Megaannum or millions of years, I presume).

  • DOME-1 ‘whole rock’0.35 ± 0.05 (300,000 - 400,000 years old)
  • DOME-1 feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06 (280,000 - 400,000 years old)
  • DOME-1M amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2 (700,000 - 1,100,000 years old)
  • DOME-1H pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3 (1,400,000 - 2,000,000 years old)
  • DOME-1P pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6 (2,200,000 - 3,400,000 years old) (just an extract of a more complex table they gave, plus an understandable translation of the Ma values).


They also make this claim about the table: Potassium-argon data from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens Volcano.

So, suppose they are a biassed source, suppose they are making very wild claims, how come wiki isn't listing any reference to some link refuting these claims? Sth like a "non-biassed" (i e evolutionist) source?

Even more, the CMI link is referencing what the guys dating the lava (or defending the method in general) said: "Dalrymple22 recognized that these anomalous ‘ages’ could be caused by ‘excess radiogenic 40Ar’ from natural contamination, or caused by isotopic fractionation of argon. Krummenacher23 offered similar explanations for unexpected argon isotope ratios from several modern lava flows."

So, why not go to note 22 for Dalrymple: 22.Dalrymple, Ref. 21. [which reads] 21.Dalrymple, G.B., 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47–55, 1969.

And Krummenacher in note 23: 23.Krummenacher, D., Isotopic composition of argon in modern surface volcanic rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 8:109–117, 1970.

Of course, the references are from 1969 and 1970 ... science could have progressed since then and Steven A. Austin might be flogging a dead horse instead of fighting a live bull ... but shouldn't wikipedia have given some link to a refutation, if that were the case?

Wait, there is also a thing like TalkOrigins - maybe they have a thing?

Sure:

Claim CD013.1: Index to Creationist Claims,
edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2007
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html


Let's pardon them for only citing Austin and Swenson and not Dalrymple and Krumenacher (or was the CMI article talking of Austin and Swenson measures? Check, I am a bit tired today!) BUT what they give is not all that bad even so:

"Response:

  • "1. Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.

  • "2. Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless."


Now, what do I respond to that?

  • 2. is a problem that CAN be fixed. But was it fixed already when certain dates like at Laetoli were measured? Or has it been fixed only after Mount St Helens without adequate redating of already measured "dates"? And are xenocrysts all that neat to distinguish thousands of years after the eruption?

  • 1. is a problem which CANNOT be fixed unless you prove the Earth very old and the samples under consideration therefore NON-recent. On YEC view, a date 2 million years ago never existed in time. Therefore, K-Ar just MIGHT have a use as dating items once the general old earth paradigm is taken for granted ... wait a second. You can know a sample is recent if you were around. But if you were not, how can you know whether it is within or beyond the 2,000,000 year limit?

    Even more : one date is beyond the 2,000,000 year limit, but watch the margin of error: 2.8 ± 0.6 (2,200,000 - 3,400,000 years old)


Now for the lout*:

"Show me one accredited scientist that backs up anything you are touting as fact."

CMI : Dr. Tasman Bruce Walker
http://creation.com/dr-tasman-bruce-walker


* If you like some politeness from me, change the screenname, for one. Earlier comments will change name automatically if you change screen name and retain channel. Btw, I am not sure I haven't met you somewhere before.

"Jeez S. Christ"
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Wow, that video of that guy making shit up and bloviating on Biblical Worldview has totally returned me to Christ. Not.

He is not espousing anything that deposes Evolution, he is merely asking us to consider the Biblical Worldview. ALL of his evidence is undermined by itself, much like every rampant claim you further wish to endorse in regards to Creation. I'll be here all week, dumb [blip].

For the record, the man is not serving his degrees very well, nor is he seconded by independent critique. His degrees are solid, Univ of Queensland is a decent enough school, please explain to him that he is also wrong about Biblical Creation. Thank you again dumb [blip].

Next?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah you are an apostate. How sad.

I'm not crying over you. Answering you may help someone else.

"My statement about petroleum should end your whole Young Earth Wet Dream, it should easily dismantle, by use of the properties of BASIC HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL CHEMISTRY that the materials involved in producing petroleum products are in fact BEYOND ANCIENT."

According to the theory commonly given. I gave a real geologist a chance to reply to my criticism, she has so far not taken it. I nearly thought she was getting tired of you, but then she seemed more OK with you than with me even. So, no. Now, Lascaux and Altamira and so on ...

"Why are there no cave paintings of Dinosaurs? Cave paintings in Lascaux have been effortlessly dated to be in existence for at least 20,000 years (and I am being kind, they are much older than that). Where were the Dinosaurs?"

  • 1) tas walker would not just agree, but has in fact agreed very explicitly that Carbon 14 datings are for one not entirely worthless but for another as commonly given, beyond a certain time back in need of reinterpretation - which is explained by lower C14 back then.

    You do not have a continual presence of human population in Altamira or Lascaux which have kept continual written records back to 20,000 years ago, therefore we cannot check the calibration for C14 dates that old against historic dating of objects.

    Now, half an halflife of C14 is another matter, it's about the time of Cyrus or Sennacherib or sth (not quite sure on exact half life) and you can check against objects from their days if C14 back then was close or spot on what it is today. You can't do that for Lascaux or Altamira.

  • 2) THEN Lascaux and Altamira having this possibility of being much younger than 20,000 years (though obviously older than 2,000 years, which do give another carbon date and wich is indeed checkable), may in fact be post-Flood. Which is what the Creation Science community thinks by and large.

  • 3) Most dinosaurs are however from before the Flood. OK, the Behemoth type has been sited after the Flood too, but one of the sitings was in Africa.

    So, possibly the guys painting at Lascaux had the luck not to meet a dino. Then again, they possibly had the bad luck to meet a dino after painting there and then they painted there no more.


"Just for laughs, what do you believe the World population was in 46 b.c.? By your claims and explanations, it would have been no more than 3,000,000."

Where exactly did I personally state anything implying that?

Where, for that matter, did any other creationist (like not a hack, but someone knowing some creation science and some science in general) ever give such a claim? Or even a hack for that matter?

Or wait, may I make a little guess about your method? Or two?

  • A
    • 1) You look at increase rate right now.
    • 2) You look at how long ago Noah and his three sons lived, and all of the three had wives.
    • 3) You calculate how many according to that rate should have been alive in 46 BC.
  • B
    • 1) You look at number of people now and number of people in the days after Ark stranded on Ararat. And at time between then and now.
    • 2) You calculate increase rate from that.
    • 3) You draw out a graph like a linear or geometric function and see how many there should have been in 46 BC.


BOTH methods are flawed.

Human increase goes way faster when men are few but with knowhow and space is for free, than later when they are crowded. So, human increase is NOT a simple function invariable over time.

"Syria alone had over 3,000,000 people in 46 b.c. (Roman Census) and this is a solid fact."

I do not believe you that Syria had 3,000,000 people then, nor totally disbelieve it. It has more now, I think, and agricultural productivity has not gone up so drastically that 3,000,000 would certainly have been beyond the then capacity.

But when you speak of Roman Census for 46 BC, I'd like to know where you get that from.

Like, not just what modern scholar, but also what ancient writers citing the census result (or what archaeological digs). PLUS, if the number is based straight on number given in census or on some kind of calculus how many there would have been in a medium household or sth. You see, before 1800 direct individual counting statistics for populations are usually NOT available. That is a solid fact.

"Jeez S. Christ"
That's precisely why I keeping reeling you in, you make more claims and bury your argument deeper. In the future, people will be reading your words and wondering how the fuck we ever let you attempt to reproduce.

Do us all a favor and yell louder, bring more "facts" to this argument. Argon dissipation, or Gas transmissions need not be consistent, we are not trying to age them using the standard of Physics, we are aging them by the best possible long-age comparison model available. It doesn't have to pinpoint the week or minute, it is good enough to get within several thousand years, being that we are so far removed from the time when most of today's fossils were ambient.

To clarify, you did say that Petroleum takes less than 40,000 years to develop into crude? I just want a nice peg to hang my victory on, and you admitting that idiotic tidbit will clarify my victory to all who can read and chew gum.

I do believe you are crying, btw. 

Mike Hardman
I don't think i understand the question.


Hans-Georg Lundahl
α
I'll repeat and restate: Are you bothered if this would meaning driving fuel might imply burning remains of pre-Flood men and Nephelim?

If dinos were and men were not around and petrol comes from animal remains, driving cars is burning coal atoms etc. that once were in dino bodies. But since men were around in the days of Noah, are you worried driving cars or using plastic might be a kind of cannibalism? Perhaps I should be worried too.

β
Praise be to Jesus Christ - the lout who is abusing His holy Name has made himself ridiculous again.

"In the future, people will be reading your words and wondering how the fuck we ever let you attempt to reproduce."

Ah, that is admitting there is some consistency between Atheism and the ideologies of sterilisation or such? After all, you are voicing both.

"Do us all a favor and yell louder, bring more "facts" to this argument."

Wasn't yelling, and am satisfied with the facts I brought to question until NEXT argument I counter.

"I do believe you are crying, btw."

You are lying - or dreaming. Now, for the argument you gave, you gave the fact I needed:

"Argon dissipation, or Gas transmissions need not be consistent, we are not trying to age them using the standard of Physics, we are aging them by the best possible long-age comparison model available."

Ah, best possible long age model available?

I'll take that as an admission of two things:

  • a) you really do not know
  • b) you would reasonably know (perhaps in some places at least) if long age model were previously proven.


Thank you, but that makes it circular to use K-Ar as a proof of the long age model!

"It doesn't have to pinpoint the week or minute, it is good enough to get within several thousand years, being that we are so far removed from the time when most of today's fossils were ambient."

When it came to a lava flow in 1996 (not identic to the one dated by two creationists), the method missed by two million years. That is not "within several thousand years".

Also, you argue FROM us being being "so far removed from the time when most of today's fossils were ambient." Again, circular.

"To clarify, you did say that Petroleum takes less than 40,000 years to develop into crude?"

Petroleum does not develop into crude oil, it is crude oil.

And yes, I said it.

"I just want a nice peg to hang my victory on, and you admitting that idiotic tidbit will clarify my victory to all who can read and chew gum."

What victory? You are going circular again. "we know it takes at least 40,000 years for crude oil to form because no crude oil is younger, and we know no crude oil is younger because it takes 40,00 year to form" or sth?

So, if you want to back up the "crude oil is all 40,000 years whereever we find it" you had better back up this independently of dating crude oil by the time it takes to form.

But that means dismissing the crude oil argument as much as you need also to dismiss the K-Ar argument. How many do you have left?

Btw, I'll resent if you try to get back to using either of these two as a back up argument for the next one that fails you!

"Jeez S. Christ"
[Blip] your claims, you are making shit up at this point. Everyone reading your thread will know that. You act as if you are the lone scientist on board, you're not. Like I said, keep shouting this bullshit, it is getting funnier.

I do have a complete understanding of Argon dissipation, I know enough to understand that you are misinformed about its properties. I know that you are trying to sound smart, you're not.

I am asserting that the dissipation factors you are calling to my attention will not change the scope of our current dating system by more than 5-7% which is just fine for the dating being attempted. In other words, if we are wrong about the specific period of dating in question, it is by far less than you assert that it would be. You are trying to convert Millions of years into a neat little 10,000 year package. it won't fit but please keep up with this bullshit you are slinging.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I made nothing up, and it is sad for you that you cannot see the difference between factual claim and logical argument about the ones you make. I am NOT acting as if I were the lone scientist on earth and have never done so - but you are acting as if a certain collective of them (admittedly in majority today) were the lone, not just scientists but even thinkers on earth and that everyone who is not on their line should let their set think for themselves. I refuse to coddle your collective megalomania, that is all.

"I do have a complete understanding of Argon dissipation, I know enough to understand that you are misinformed about its properties. I know that you are trying to sound smart, you're not."

If you did, why were you not answering my points instead of your diatribe?

"Jeez S. Christ"
No, I am not trying to convince you because if you can read the proper textbooks and still arrive at your conclusions, you are either insane or talking for our entertainment. Believe me, nobody is gaining a further knowledge of science from your entries. Nobody is changing their views due to your ridiculous assertions. If any of the things you are saying amount to claiming an Earth Age of less than 10,000 years, then you are obviously too insane to persuade. I wouldn't want you on my side, being insane like you are.

Discussing the depths of chemical reaction, chemical functions, and combined elemental materials with a person like you would not serve to improve upon what we understand. You are merely here for an entertainment for me.

I believe your argument is that Argon does not behave EXACTLY the same way that it might have during the period from which fossils and artifacts were recovered. You are claiming that because chemical transitions might be dissimilar, that we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Even if the Argon dissipation argument were a sound one, which it is not, your calculations would not be off more than FIVE TO SEVEN PERCENT> Please do a math problem for me and subtract 10,000 from 13.65 Billion. Now, divide that amount by 13.65 Billion. That is the percentage by which you are incorrect. Get a little closer to the bulls-eye if you want to be taken seriously. Have I reminded you of what a dumb cunt you are acting like? You are, you are being a dumb cunt who is off by more than 13.659999999991 BILLION years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Gloria +Patri+et Filii+et Spiritui Sancto!

Quisnam latine conscius iam audivit phrasim "iurare in verba magistri"?

"I believe your argument is that Argon does not behave EXACTLY the same way that it might have during the period from which fossils and artifacts were recovered."

No, you pretend to believe that because you are afraid to deal with the argument I really made.

"Even if the Argon dissipation argument were a sound one"

Where exactly did I or the CMI article I cited or even the Mark Isaac pseudo refutation of the argument mention "dissipation"? More like absorption if you look. More you have argon, more potassium is supposed to have decayed into it. Absorb argon from air (other components of air not being measured or perhaps even reacting to form other molucules that can't be measured) and the "measure" is biassed to the older.

Plus, you cannot check the decay rate at any important portion of process (like a full half life, like a half half life etc down to a minimum sixteenth even) against historically known material. Not even sure K-Ar dates were made for Vesuvius.

Continued debate from ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material I (first sequel)

1) ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material, 2) Continued debate ... (first sequel), 3) Continued debate ... (second sequel), 4) Continued debate ... (Third sequel), 5) Continued debate ... sequel four

Like it or not
we start with the scoffer, whose profile name is profaning Our Lord's name.
« Jeez S. Christ »
It's amazing that you are able to discern this viewpoint when it has been deposed so many years ago that we of proper knowledge no longer care enough about your old defeated arguments to construct the diagram by which you would be able to join us here in the present. If I were to work as hard as you in the endeavor, I am sure I could prove that the Hydrogen molecule is really just Helium in disguise. And who could blame Helium for being so insecure about itself? Let us see how far you will go with this argument, go boldly into this argument Sir, soon you will turn round and find no one following. Enjoy your singular and lonesome view of a world so easily observed to be in contradiction to your ability to perceive it properly.

When I called you [Blip] I was right in doing so and that verdict compounds itself with each banal grasp for more "intellectual" water as you drown in your silly SUPERFLUOUS rants. Continue, you have the floor.

And please stop mis-analyzing the properties regarding the relationships between Uranium, Deuterium, and Plutonium. [sic!] You are about as brilliant as John Morris Pendleton, who claims to be a Chemist when he is actually a Tire-Mechanic with a Chemistry degree from a diploma-mill.

Frankly dude, your "tone" is similar to the Gigantic Rube from outer Space known as Glenn Beck. Are you gonna start crying and emoting about Thomas Paine at some point?

To a layman you might sound educated but to an educated and qualified person of science you sound like a guy who is barely making it through your first day on the job. *

If you had taken Earth Science 101, way back in Junior College, you might not make such a grand fool of yourself in this arena, as you are doing.

*[Arguing is not a job on which THESE guys are my employers!]

auchucknorris
+Hans-Georg Lundahl ye so it only has rough certainty and other effects can effect it but your then asserting that because other effect can alter it we shouldnt trust it at all, which is technically fair but does nothing when its not just one fossil from one location we get these time lines, its based one LOTS of samples with LOTS of location variety and the fact they they all match up makes it the more likely answer than "all these things COULD of happened to throw it off" but seeing as we base science on what is MOST likely, because NOTHING is certain until we have concrete evidence of something ACTUALLY interfering your MAYBE hypohtisis is not ruled out but just highly unlikely.. and you keep saying flood.. please tell me your not the type of person i would really be annoyed having to actually bother explaining how there is 0 evidence of a world wide flood ever happening.. not to mention it came from a book made up of stolen stories ducktaped from other ancient religions and is in no way a credible scientific document... gawd now i HAVE to look at the links to see what kind of moron im talking to.. because if your who i think your going to turn out to be.. you cant win, citing one feild of science when all these other feilds either disprove components of you arguements, if you try n tell me the earth is 10,000 years old and dinisours were whiped out in the flood your about to get floor moped by a guy who knows general knowledge of the hows and whys of basically all feilds of science about how the universe to how this solar system to how this planet, to how life, to how we came about, like i have a chornological order of the hows and whys of every thing up to this point so its not going to be funny (besides for me), so i dare you, state in a clear scentense "the earth is 10,000 years old, evolution doesnt exist and we walked with dinosaurs" so i can beguine on you

« Jeez S. Christ »
+auchucknorris Begin the Beguine!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+auchucknorris "ye so it only has rough certainty and other effects can effect it but your then asserting that because other effect can alter it we shouldnt trust it at all, which is technically fair but does nothing when its not just one fossil from one location we get these time lines"

No fossil is in itself dated by UPb. For starters.

And LOTS of fossils are dated by period layer which in its turn is dated by fossils in it - for a good little vicious circle.

ON TOP of that, they do not superpose, unlike rock layers.

« Jeez S. Christ »
+Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm really enjoying the brutal arrogance of your indifference to the truth of this subject. It's like watching one of those ISIS dudes mishandle a grenade, for those 5.3 seconds there is a voyeuristic schadenfreude- then BAM!! The funny thing is, the true cold Morality of the Universe could care less if you wish to shove your own head in the sand and hum "Mary Had A Little Lamb" to block out the sounds of truth.

I feel like the doctors have released you from care before you were ready. They should have at least sealed your lobotomy hole back up properly.

Oh yeah, I am forgetting something...uh. Shit. I forgot because I am so stoned on Hash. Wait! I remember now! You're a dumb [blip]. that was it. Whew! i am glad I didn't forget that or leave that out. You might start getting the idea that someone is respecting you. The "I am arguing politely" routine is a bit old and doesn't fly on our Interwebs. Nice try though.

This is where you remind me that you stopped noticing my comments 'weeks ago" and that I am "beneath debating" and yet none of your claims or fact-sourcing rings true, which only augurs more laughter from the eternal peanut gallery of 'teh interwebs'.

[omitting a blasphemous expletive]

Brooks Anderson
I don't understand this conversation and I have been "doing geology" for more than 50 years.

auchucknorris
+Hans-Georg Lundahl thats cool and alls but before i get started i just need you to state in clear words what you BELEIVE so i can accurately start tearing you to shreds

+Brooks Anderson well i dont like to assume so i dont want to start on this hans guy but from what i can tell hes one of those people who believe there was a guy on a boat and a huge flood and some how that threw off all carbon dating so it cant be used.. even tho the huge ACCUMULATIVE EVIDENCE. not just one or two out liers have a very convincing case that that didn't happen and for the most part we can roughly gauge the time periods of many with atleast enough certainty to be EXTREMELY SURE the earth isnt 10,000 years old not to mention things in other feilds such as the cosmic background radiation that almost certainly proves both the big bang and age of the universe and MANNYYY other things which i just want him to clarify what his stating before i beguine

Brooks Anderson
OK Like I wrote, I simply don,t understand his arguments. I'm guessing that he is a "believer" so no amount of evidence is going to offset his FAITH (belief without evidence) .

auchucknorris
+Brooks Anderson not while hes got nit picked evidence he has no comprehension of in the 1st place, hell just keep reciting the semi scientific BS hes been feed with no clue you've already proven him wrong, because from what hes alerady stated hes willing to assume that things like a flood and nuclear bombs COULD throw of readings for ALL THE VAST CORROBORATING EVIDENCE but willing to bring up the outliers as evidence with out the same level of skepticism for the "could of's and might of's" that hes using to dismiss the overwhelming majority

« Jeez S. Christ »
Would anyone please explain to me how long it takes for fossil fuels to break down and age to the state they are in now? Is the stuff I am pumping into my Buick evidence of a timeline longer than 10,000 years? If so, I must say the argument wins itself.

Brooks Anderson
Jeez: :Google, The youngest natural oil on earth There is a 2010 russian research paper online claiming that there is 50 year old oil on the Kamchatca Peninsiula and 5,000 year old oil in the Guymas Basin. These are the youngest reported oil deposits. Most are considered to be much (millions of years) older. However, I am always skeptical of fantastic claimes for new scientific discoveries out of Russia. Although that country has some first rate scientists and engineers, for some reason, there is a disproportionate number of hucksters and false claims orginating there. So, read the article but, be skeptical.

Mike Hardman
+Jeez S. Christ well, 1st off, what we call fossil fuel, is simply an element we found that is useful, as far as proof dead leaves/animals create this substance, there is none.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
subdividing
α
“and you keep saying flood.. please tell me your not the type of person i would really be annoyed having to actually bother explaining how there is 0 evidence of a world wide flood ever happening”

OK, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene and so on fossils are not extant?

Or are you saying they are evidence for sth ELSE than a flood?

Let’s take your idea first. On your view, they are evidence of periods separated by millions of years. In any location where you find Permian deposits at all, that is an accident – it could have been sea in Permian and gotten filled up with an avalanche of rock in Triassic before we get to diggable fossils in Jurassic, which has not been washed away since, for instance. And similarily for each other period.

In that case, SOMEWHERE you might expect to find the same accident (basically) had happened for Permian had also happened for Palaeocene or sth?

Where do you find three layers above each other, not just rock deposits supposedly separated by millions of years, but fossils from the right periods in each rock deposit? Where on earth could you find, not just a trilobite below a dinosaur, but also a smilodon above it? On the law of averages, it ought to have happened somewhere. Not everywhere, but like ten places on earth or sth.

Don’t say Grand Canyon, because all periods represented there, except the very top are shellfish, shellfish, shellfish. Perhaps some finned fish too, I don’t know. These are not the well known icons of land vertebrate faunas we saw in the dinosaur books as kids.

In Karoo, you can find Permian, you can find Triassic, you can even find Triassic. Wouldn’t it be the ideal spot to have already found (after I say this it might be arranged) a Permian Moschops five metres or two metres under a Jurassic Dracovenator regenti?

Now, let’s analyse the Flood scenario – or one of them, the one I find probable. If all these period fossils are really from same time, like Flood, we would expect sth else. A Permian biotope got drowned in Flood water and mud in one place, a Triassic one somewhere else, a Jurassic one somewhere else and a Cretaceous and a Palaeocene or Eocene one elsewhere too.

Guess how Karoo looks?

Moschops capensis is Permian and from Beaufort West:

Palaeocritti Blog : Moschops capensis
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/moschops-capensis.html


from:

Palaeocritti : Moschops capensis
http://www.palaeocritti.com/moschops


Arctognathus curvimola is also Permian and is also from Beaufort :

Palaeocritti Blog : Arctognathus
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/arctognathus.html


from:

Palaeocritti : Arctognathus
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/gorgonopsia/arctognathus


But Massospondylus carinatus is from Jurassic – and it is from Elliott formation.

Palaeocritti Blog : Massospondylus
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/massospondylus.html


from:

Palaeocritti : Massospondylus
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/dinosauria/sauropoda/massospondylus


And Litargosuchus leptorhynchus is from Jurassic and it is also from Elliott formation :

Palaeocritti Blog : Litargosuchus leptorhynchus
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/litargosuchus-leptorhynchus.html


from:

Palaeocritti : Litargosuchus leptorhynchus
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/crocodylomorpha/sphenosuchia/litargosuchus


I defy you to go through South Africa on palaeocritti site and find any Jurassic thing from Beaufort or any Permian thing from Elliott:

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
By Location‎ > ‎South Africa
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-location/south-africa


And South Africa is NOT the only place where I have looked. My backup blog

Palaeocritti Blog
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com


… for their site …

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
http://www.palaeocritti.com/home


… is far behind, but you can see how many [or few, if you like] of the localities I have already gone through, totally or partially without EVER finding a trilobite under or a smilodon over a dinosaur in same spot – or even same general locality, unless we go to borders between periods that are horizontal rather than vertical in the terrain. To me that means the evidence fits the Flood better than the Evolution scenario of Litargosuchus leptorhynchus “developing later on the tree of life than” Moschops capensis. How you want to make it fit your world view, I am curious.

Did I hear “there must be some place”? Find it. I have spent MONTHS looking. Did I hear “it’s just a fluke”? Well, what about your own words: ” its based one LOTS of samples with LOTS of location variety and the fact they they all match up makes it the more likely answer than "all these things COULD of happened to throw it off" but seeing as we base science on what is MOST likely, because NOTHING is certain until we have concrete evidence of something ACTUALLY interfering your MAYBE hypohtisis is not ruled out but just highly unlikely”

”not to mention it came from a book made up of stolen stories ducktaped from other ancient religions and is in no way a credible scientific document”

Nice try, but how do you propose to prove, how do you think the experts YOU rely on have proven (if they have so) that: “Flood happened, Babylonians told story, Moses told story” is NOT what happened; and that: “Flood didn’t happen or just happened locally, Babylonians invented story (perhaps from memories of a local flood), and Ezra plagiarised story in a book he fraudulently attributed to Moses” IS what happened? How do you propose to prove any such preference against credibility of a particular source?

Besides, again, further up the thread I also dealt with that one. Could have saved yourself trouble by looking first and answering then.

”[deleted a profanation] now i HAVE to look at the links to see what kind of moron im talking to.. because if your who i think your going to turn out to be.. you cant win, citing one feild of science when all these other feilds either disprove components of you arguments”

OK, every time I beat you one one field, you can repeat over and over again that I have just picked a detail and there are all these OTHER sciences (which you conveniently hadn’t cited yet) which completely disprove me … I sense a bit of a bad looser syndrome. When I beat you on the next item, are you going to get back to items I already beat you on and hope I had forgotten the answer I gave? Think again.

”if you try n tell me the earth is 10,000 years old and dinisours were whiped out in the flood your about to get floor moped by a guy who knows general knowledge of the hows and whys of basically all feilds of science about how the universe to how this solar system to how this planet, to how life, to how we came about, like i have a chornological order of the hows and whys of every thing up to this point so its not going to be funny (besides for me), so i dare you, state in a clear scentense "the earth is 10,000 years old, evolution doesnt exist and we walked with dinosaurs" so i can beguine on you”

I can't.

Sorry, but I can't!

I can’t state the Earth is ten thousand years old!

You see, I know the general hows and whys and in which order and it doesn’t add up to 10,000 years. St Jerome concluded from LXX text that Christ was born 5199 years after He had created Heaven and Earth.

One more, I am an ex-evolutionist. I know the general hows and whys and in which orders of YOUR story or myth quite as well as my own. Stating that “all scientists” agree (when that is even not the case, but a superficial impression which gives you as much credibility as a scientist as women priest Anglicans or Lutherans have as theologians, if not less) is just telling me the story tellers in question remember their story. I wasn’t doubting they could tell it, I was stating they couldn’t prove it. And explaining (especially explanations I will poke holes in and then you will whine again about “you can’t win on just one item, when all the other fields in science ….” ) with me does not count as proving. Nor do you score a victory by quickly changing the subject each time I score one from the arguments given.

β
Praise be eternally to Our Lord and God Jesus Christ!

Now for the foul type (whose profile takes His holy name in vain):

” I'm really enjoying the brutal arrogance of your indifference to the truth of this subject. It's like watching one of those ISIS dudes mishandle a grenade, for those 5.3 seconds there is a voyeuristic schadenfreude- then BAM!! The funny thing is, the true cold Morality of the Universe could care less if you wish to shove your own head in the sand and hum "Mary Had A Little Lamb" to block out the sounds of truth. “

Did I hear you compare a peaceful creationist to an ISIS thug?

”Oh yeah, I am forgetting something...uh. Shit. I forgot because I am so stoned on Hash. Wait! I remember now! You're a dumb [blip]. that was it. Whew! i am glad I didn't forget that or leave that out. You might start getting the idea that someone is respecting you.”

There are people respecting me more than they respect you.

”I feel like the doctors have released you from care before you were ready. They should have at least sealed your lobotomy hole back up properly. “

Did I get it right that you recommend psychiatry to get involved as thugs for your ideology against those not sharing it? Ha, that explains some of the evolutionist success! You can go on about “people had to believe in the Middle Ages, or they got burned on a stake” but what about the similar and more damaging threat of psychiatry mistreatment? Think of what you just said. Or let someone else do the thinking, till you are less stoned!

γ
+auchucknorris again:

C’mon! What was I saying about fleeing from the issue at hand?

“not while hes got nit picked evidence he has no comprehension of in the 1st place, hell just keep reciting the semi scientific BS hes been feed with no clue you've already proven him wrong, because from what hes alerady stated hes willing to assume that things like a flood and nuclear bombs COULD throw of readings for ALL THE VAST CORROBORATING EVIDENCE”

And how about getting some kind of idea of what your opposition is actually saying?

” well i dont like to assume so i dont want to start on this hans guy but from what i can tell hes one of those people who believe there was a guy on a boat and a huge flood and some how that threw off all carbon dating so it cant be used”

If you had looked up earlier parts in the thread, you would very much have known this is NOT what I am saying and NOT what Tas Walker is saying. Have you EVER heard of the initial buildup problem? ALSO, carbon dating has something to do with dating human remains in 20,000 years BP, but nothing to do with YOUR dating of dinos or trilobites. It has been tried on them but generally on creationist initiative. If a dino bone dates 20,000 to 40,000 BP by carbon dating, that is not refuting Biblical chronology, due to initial buildup, but it is pretty well, due to similarity of carbon levels in atmosphere at same time and due to similarity of decay rate, at least not very corroborating the dates given by other methods.

δ
+Brooks Anderson "OK Like I wrote, I simply don,t understand his arguments. I'm guessing that he is a "believer" so no amount of evidence is going to offset his FAITH (belief without evidence) . "

Madame, that is what I guess about you. Brooks is a girls' name, right? You sound like a true believer in my former religion (from age 6 - 8, about), someone who will just block out any rational argumentation against it and say "I just don't understand" and feel reassured if a manly but not very logic type just reassures you. The rest of what I say here is just in case I am wrong:

I was not only arguing with the others and with you too, but I asked you about a specific question about California.

Supposing a red sandstone usually lies above a white lime stone all over the place, but in Western California, it is the white limestone which lies above the red sandstone. Or whatever the case may be, since so far you did not specify, I'll be free enough to invent by reconstruction what you might have meant and answer that, until you give the specifics.

On your view, the deposits happened same order in Western California too. Then ...

On my view, streams during the Flood mostly directed the deposits for red sandstone onto the shellfish that were reacting or had already reacted so as to give limestone (and God was keeping Noah's ark out of the way and some fish out of the way so they could survive), but right in the region of Western California, the streams with red sand and shellfish came the other way round. If this is wrong, what are the specifics why I should take your view?

Also, on my view, first of all you are not likely to find a vertebrate fossil from one period straight above the vertebrate fossil from another one. But even if there is a mile between two rocks, geologists will look at the stone, presume the formations continued all over, and see if they can fit together two superpositions in them. In that sense you have a professional jargon specific usage of "above" and "below", in that sense you see Jurassic Dracovenator from Elliott formation as being above the Perlmian Moschops from Beaufort West (in Karoo), whatever the geographic distance within that scale. Could I have guessed right that in Western California you have actually found Jurassic and Permian type fossils deposed in the wrong order according to your superpositions?

That is the kind of question I'd ask a geologist, but if Madame prefers taking me for someone who can get heaps of evidence and ignore it, well, why did you bother to read as far as this?

ε
Commenting on a conversation between Madame and the scoffer who abuses the name of Our Lord:

” Is the stuff I am pumping into my Buick evidence of a timeline longer than 10,000 years? If so, I must say the argument wins itself”

Whether it is evidence or not depends on how long it took for it to form.

”There is a 2010 russian research paper online claiming that there is 50 year old oil on the Kamchatca Peninsiula and 5,000 year old oil in the Guymas Basin. These are the youngest reported oil deposits. ”

Could it be they for once carbon dated instead of just assuming it was too old for that? Is 50 years a typo or did I get it right?

”Most are considered to be much (millions of years) older. ”

Like because they are found below some Cretaceous lime stone usually referred to as “shale”, right? And because Cretaceous is supposed to have ended 65 million years ago? Would I be wrong?

”However, I am always skeptical of fantastic claimes for new scientific discoveries out of Russia. Although that country has some first rate scientists and engineers, for some reason, there is a disproportionate number of hucksters and false claims orginating there. So, read the article but, be skeptical. ”

One major reason would be the dechristianisation after the Russian Revolution. Oparin came up with a theory of abiogenesis which Miller Urey has so far NOT substantiated, and Oparin was Russian.

ζ
+Mike Hardman

”well, 1st off, what we call fossil fuel, is simply an element we found that is useful, as far as proof dead leaves/animals create this substance, there is none. ”

For coal, there is proof, in the sense that some coal is tessellated or whatever you like to call it in patterns closely resembling for instance leaves of very great ferns.

For petrol, one evidence it is from animals is that if it were from plants, it would be coal. If there is more chemical evidence to it, I don’t happen to know it.

Are you bothered if this would meaning driving fuel might imply burning remains of pre-Flood men and Nephelim? I have seen some argue that God wanted them to be first squished, then useful. But perhaps it should be about time it became useful as an argument. Not just an asset. Kent Hovind may have come into trouble because some petrol magnate dreads a return to other ways of living than driving cars and other fuels for heating than petrol, if creationism is heard.