Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

[Sparhafoc]

My claim of C was expressly based on the fact that CAN BE NO EVIDENCE.

My claim C is also based on the fact that CAN BE NO EVIDENCE

Well, you are wrong.

There can be evidence and there is evidence.

For example, supernovae produce radioactive isotopes that emit gamma rays with frequencies that are consistent with observed decay rates on the planet. These supernovae exploded millions of years ago providing a cross-reference check as to the validity of our observed decay rates here. (Thielemann et al. 1998)

This also means we can make predictions - a core component of science - that lets us check our models against objects of as yet unknown provenance.

Now, as far as I am aware, there are no examples where our predictions have failed.

So it's over to you to establish examples of where the predictions have failed. If you can't, then you need to explain why you are making a contention that contradicts empirical evidence.

Whereas, there IS evidence for radiometric dating as per the fucking scientific articles you ignored.

sources full of lies and fallacies

So you say, but writing a couple of words is cheap and easy.

As you've said you didn't read the sources, we know how much this is worth.

It shows you, once again, unable to maintain even the most elementary level of honest discourse, LEROY.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Of course I did not read the sources, I am taking the skeptic position, I don't have to read any sources al I have to so is read the titles, assume the content and proclaim logical fallacies and lies in the sources.

I think I'll just leave this here.

I think I'll go one further!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

[Seems obvious to me that dandan/leroy did not read the sources. How pathetic.

Of course I did not read the sources, I am taking the skeptic position, I don't have to read any sources al I have to so is read the titles, assume the content and proclaim logical fallacies and lies in the sources.

That is not the skeptical position, that is the denialist's position. However, glad to see you admit to this. Your actions here are always coming closer into focus. I also love that you state this right after a post in which you claim the sources are full of fallacies and lies. Again, how pathetic.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Incidentally, what has this thread ever had to do with science or mathematics?

The OP, for what it's worth, is tenuously about moral philosophy.

 

[leroy]

Thank you for finally acknowledging that I did not say what you said I did.

Now can you show where the sources

said it, please?

:lol: it turns out that you don't read your sources ether.



As radioactive Parent atoms decay to stable daughter atoms (as uranium decays to lead) each disintegration results in one more atom of the daughter than was initially present and one less atom of the parent. The probability of a parent atom decaying in a fixed period of time is always the same for all atoms of that type regardless of temperature, pressure, or chemical conditions. This probability of decay is the decay constant

https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

At present, no I don't.

This is because I am obliged only to support a contention I make - not one you want me to make, whereas you are obliged to support any contention you make, and it very much appears that you are trying to evade supporting your contention.

I will happily take an affirmative position when I choose to, and my affirmative will be phrased exactly how I want to phrase it. However, it will be very happy to support my contention at that time.

First though, what is your evidence that decay rates have changed over time.

radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates are constant, if you don't grant this assumption then you don't grant RD.

so you are on the creationists side.





Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
leroy wrote:
sure logical fallacies

Fallacy of generalization, you are assuming that things that we observe today where there 200 years ago

Fallacy of composition< just because the rocks are "old" that doesn't mean that the planet is also Old.

Ungranted assumption, decay rates have always been constant.



Oh look, LEROY!

You must have made a perfectly honest mistake.

Why?

Because when you first wrote this contention, you said...


Leroy wrote:
yes 3 independent sources full of logical fallacies and ungranted assertions.



So you claimed that the sources were full of logical fallacies and ungranted assumptions.

Now, as a perfectly honest individual who has an honest disagreement they want to express honestly to their fellows....

Sparhafoc wrote:

Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

the point that I am making is that using your methodology one can dismiss radiometric dating and pretty much any other uncontroversial scientific fact.

this methodology includes not reading sources.

So you say, but writing a couple of words is cheap and easy

As you've said you didn't read the sources, we know how much this is worth.

It shows you, once again, unable to maintain even the most elementary level of honest discourse, LEROY.
.

your methodology also includes that cheap and easy way of dismissing an argument

Now, as far as I am aware, there are no examples where our predictions have failed.

So it's over to you to establish examples of where the predictions have failed. If you can't, then you need to explain why you are making a contention that contradicts empirical evidence

why should I do that? If you where not willing to provide examples of "something coming from nothing" because your position is C why should I provide examples of failed predictions if my position is also C?


BTW, your own sources, those that you did not read provide such examples of failed predictions,


of course at personal level I do grant radiometric dating, the point is that using the methodology that you used to dismiss the KCA, one can also dismiss radiometric dating. It is very easy to proclaim C seat on your couch and repeat "there is no evidence" "there is no evidence"
"there is no evidence"
"there is no evidence"

 

[Deleted member 619]

radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates are constant, if you don't grant this assumption then you don't grant RD.

so you are on the creationists side.

You're lying again. Radiometric dating techniques were empirically derived, and are rooted in well-understood principles of atomic physics, principles that have been OBSERVED over billions of years.

 

[Sparhafoc]

the point that I am making is that using your methodology one can dismiss radiometric dating and pretty much any other uncontroversial scientific fact.

No, this is the point you are trying and failing terribly at making for the reasons already told to you.

I ignored the rest until you sort out the quotation as I don't intend to fix it for you in reply.

 

[Sparhafoc]

radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates are constant, if you don't grant this assumption then you don't grant RD.

so you are on the creationists side.

You're lying again. Radiometric dating techniques were empirically derived, and are rooted in well-understood principles of atomic physics, principles that have been OBSERVED over billions of years.

Quite.

LEROY is making an equivocation again, this time between the way HE arrives at his positions, and the way that science arrives at its positions.

This was quite clear in the fine-tuning thread, but underlies so many of LEROY"s mistakes.

Creationism starts with its conclusion and tries to find fact that will fit. Those facts which don't fit are evaluated on inconsistent principles grounded in protecting the conclusion and discarded.

Science, as LEROY should know if he thinks he can dispute it on the internet, starts with facts at the most basic level: observations of stuff in the empirical world. Then explanations are proposed to describe the relationship of these quantities.

Because LEROY operates with presuppositions guiding all his positions, he mistakenly assumes that other people are so handicapped. This is undoubtedly why he keeps thinking he can get people to answer one of his false dichotomies, because he is literally incapable of seeing anything other than a binary where his presuppositions are right, or contending presuppositions are in effect.

His silly attempt at parroting my argument fails in so many ways, but perhaps most tellingly of all, it fails to understand the nature of a null hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

the point that I am making is that using your methodology one can dismiss radiometric dating and pretty much any other uncontroversial scientific fact.

No, this is the point you are trying and failing terribly at making for the reasons already told to you.

I ignored the rest until you sort out the quotation as I don't intend to fix it for you in reply.

yes that is also part of your methodology.

 

[leroy]

radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates are constant, if you don't grant this assumption then you don't grant RD.

so you are on the creationists side.

You're lying again. Radiometric dating techniques were empirically derived, and are rooted in well-understood principles of atomic physics, principles that have been OBSERVED over billions of years.

however it is still a fact that if Sparhafoc doesn't grant that decay rates are constant he can not conclude that RD is reliable.

 

[Sparhafoc]

No, this is the point you are trying and failing terribly at making for the reasons already told to you.

I ignored the rest until you sort out the quotation as I don't intend to fix it for you in reply.

yes that is also part of your methodology.

What is part of my methodology? Fucking up quotes so my post is illegible?

Of course not, LEROY - this is just another one of your playground 'no you' diversions.

Can't be arsed to fix your post?

Then no one's going to read it, LEROY. Which means you wasted your time.

Of course, you could stop pretending that you are superior to others, get your finger out of your arse, and go back and edit your post to make it legible.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You're lying again. Radiometric dating techniques were empirically derived, and are rooted in well-understood principles of atomic physics, principles that have been OBSERVED over billions of years.

however it is still a fact that if Sparhafoc doesn't grant that decay rates are constant he can not conclude that RD is reliable.

Again, you completely fail to understand anything relevant, and again you completely fail to render my position accurately, and again you make up bullshit then try to get it to stick, because again you are incapable of honest discourse.

 

[Sparhafoc]

So once again, we've got another assertion LEROY has made where he can't provide a jot of substantiation for his bollocks claim, and all he does is spend pages and pages of text pretending that the other side has the burden of proof.

What a clown.

 

[leroy]

So once again, we've got another assertion LEROY has made where he can't provide a jot of substantiation for his bollocks claim, and all he does is spend pages and pages of text pretending that the other side has the burden of proof.

What a clown.

sorry, what assertion is that?

 

[leroy]

Again, you completely fail to understand anything relevant, and again you completely fail to render my position accurately, and again you make up bullshit then try to get it to stick, because again you are incapable of honest discourse.

Didn't you say that you don't grant that decay rates are constant?

 

[Prolescum]

Let's keep the conversations civil, friends.

This site is for rational discussion. If for any reason you find yourselves or others to be irrational during your conversations, step away or find a way to express and/or address it better.

 

[Rumraket]

Your posts are unusually incoherent even for you. :roll:

 

[Gnug215]

Your posts are unusually incoherent even for you. :roll:

Just so everyone knows...

Rumraket is responding to... some weenie troll whose name I've already forgotten.

I apparently banned that troll so hard, all his posts disappeared as well.

 

[Rumraket]

BRAVO!

I apply the mod-team for this decision. What a truly thoroughly useless person Bernhard was.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Personally, I think he has mental-health issues.

Kindest regards,

James