Facebook Sheeple

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Justice Frangipane, in a earlier topic I wrote the following:

Greetings,

[...]

Thomas Paine said, in The Age Of Reason:

The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.

[For monotheists] The Cosmos is the only Direct Word of which we know - everything else is indirect, since it comes to us through Man.

Those who place scripture above the Cosmos are being led astray and are in danger of leading others astray.

It's ironic that scientists, who're studying the Direct Word (the cosmos) are pilloried by those who cleave to a misinterpretation of the Indirect Word.

I wonder where do you stand on the "inerrancy" of the Bible?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I just want to cover something AronRa and WildwoodClaire1 skipped.

Heat also plays a role. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
-Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava (properly called magma before it erupts) fills large underground chambers called magma chambers. Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios. Such processes can cause the daughter product to be enriched relative to the parent, which would make the rock look older, or cause the parent to be enriched relative to the daughter, which would make the rock look younger. This calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into serious question.-

You obviously do not know the first thing about radiometric dating (that is clear from your earlier babble about water blocking radiation from space). Most radiometric dating methods are done on igneous rocks. Geologists know, by the size of the crystals found within the rocks, at what temperature those igneous rocks were formed. This is why we are able to classify igneous rocks (e.g. basalt, granite, rhyolite, etc…). Thus, you are correct when you point out that heating up rocks can change the parent to daughter ratio, but it does that by also changing the structure of the rock itself. A trained geologist can see evidence of secondary melt in an igneous rock.

What you are pointing out here is something that geologists have known about for years and is corrected for. Did you really believe that geologists (scientists) are this stupid, in that they would know about this limitation and just ignore it?

I also want to harp on the point that AronRa keeps making about concordant dates. Not only do all these radiometric dating methods agree with each other, but they also agree with other absolute dating methods that are not based on radioactive elements. How do you account for this observation?

 

[Darkprophet232]

You are absolutely correct, The amount of radiation entering the atmosphere IS irrelevant to decay rates of elements. While I did place this information in the wrong section of my reply the data itself does indicate that water above the atmosphere would block a large amount of radiation from entering the environment.

3. Concede that water above the atmosphere would block radiation.

4. Concede that less radiation entering the system would change the results of radiometric dating.

Emphasis mine.

I had such high hopes for JF, after he admitted to not knowing everything and saying that he would research somethings. Too bad he turned into just another creationist apologist that doesn't even understand what he's saying.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Way to take the out AronRa gave you.

Seeing as how you willingly gave up on your discussion with AronRa (he made it clear that he wanted you to answer his questions or he would be done with this exchange), I hope you will not abandoned this forum and start to address what has been said here.

Justice Frangipane[/url]"]1. I would like you to concede that the rate of decay is not a "known fact" but rather a projection/extrapolation based off of watching less than .000000076923077% of K-Ar decay rates.

AronRa already addressed this.

AronRa[/url]"]Yes. You’re still talking at the 1st semester level of chemistry. We’ve been confirming different rates in many different isotopes for many decades, and some of these have VERY short half-lives. We have confirmed these rates to the degree that we’ve even been able to advance new life-saving technologies dependent on the accuracy of our understanding.

Have you noticed that creationism has never contributed anything of any value to the sum of scientific understanding?

[...]
Extrapolated data is fact. A fact is a point of data which is either not in dispute or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable. Such data can be determined mathematically, the same way we know that Pluto's orbit takes roughly 248 years, even though we only discovered Pluto 84 years ago, and have never seen a full orbit yet.

Just because you keep stating the same debunked argument repeatedly, does not give it new legs.

2. I would like you to concede that the destruction of the planet is not the "MUST" conclusion to the proposed assumption that there could be less radiation in the environment.

Yes, it is. You obviously do not understand the energy that would be emitted from the reaction of all the radioactive elements we know of giving off their energy at once. The only way for this not to be the case is if you are arguing that the universe was created with the appearance of age. Either would be a much larger assumption then everything else you are fussing over thus far combined.

3. Concede that water above the atmosphere would block radiation.

Water above the atmosphere would block radiation. However, you have not shown any evidence that there was water above the atmosphere. You are making another huge assumption, and this one too is far larger than all the assumed assumptions you have been fussing over thus far combined.

4. Concede that less radiation entering the system would change the results of radiometric dating.

It would change carbon-14 dating, not all the other radiometric dating methods. Those radioactive elements come from within the earth and have nothing to do with solar radiation. Furthermore, we can get absolute dates without using radiometric dating. In addition, those dating methods agree and confirm dates we get with radiometric dating. How do you account for this?

5. Concede that the I am not proposing that REALITY ITSELF IS WRONG, rather suggesting the possibility of a "DIFFERENT" environment then now.

You are proposing that water floated above our atmosphere in the past, and that all the radioactive elements found on earth gave off their heat without turning the earth into a molten hellhole (or that the universe was created with the appearance of age). None of those assumptions are based on the laws of physics (reality), thus you are proposing that reality was once different, (i.e. wrong!)

6. Concede that "closed" means "closed" (this should be the easiest concession you make.)

Closed means closed.

7. Concede that "pretty much closed" is not a closed system.

You must have missed the part where WildwoodClaire1 said “depending on the type of rock”. There are examples of closed systems when it comes to radiometric dating.

8. Concede that a "not closed" system would be called an open system.

A not closed system could be an open system.

As far as isochrons are concerned, and as far as the dating of crystals, I agree leaching is not a possibility in those circumstances. Which is why its a really good point that Carbon-14 is also found in Diamonds. This anomaly is deserving of serious review. What is your response to the problems with C-14 levels in Diamonds?

:facepalm:

Claim CD011.5 and Claim CD011.6. They are about petrified wood and coal, but the process is the same. It is hilarious how out of date you are with your arguments.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just to point out that Justice Frangipane can't argue that the universe was created with the appearance of age without arguing that "God" is a trickster - which clearly contradicts the belief that "God" is PERFECT.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Darkprophet232]

Seeing as how I'm fairly sure that was AronRa's final comment in the debate thread, and given how he ended it, I feel this song is apropos:

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

1. I would like you to concede that the rate of decay is not a "known fact" but rather a projection/extrapolation based off of watching less than .000000076923077% of K-Ar decay rates.

You've now gone silly, the half-life is just a way to think about decay, the decay rates are what's important and they are what is measured, they are a known fact. How long do you need to measure a cars rate of motion to say it's travelling at 100mph, would it sound silly to you if a motorist was pulled over and said to the cop, “You were only measuring my rate of motion for a small distance, you can't say I was doing 100mph, you haven’t seen me travel 100 miles”?
(I am possibly committing the fallacy fallacy as this does not seem to be the intention of your objection, but it is the insanely silly way you keep making it.)

The silliness of your argument is obfuscating from what you seem to intend which is to say that measurement of a decay rate today does not imply that it was always the same. Everybody would agree with this if you ever managed to articulate it, instead of your nonsensical argument. To show that rates have remained constant you need other evidence such as the concordant measurement across dating methods which is one of the ways AronRa answered, so this too is an evident fact.

2. I would like you to concede that the destruction of the planet is not the "MUST" conclusion to the proposed assumption that there could be less radiation in the environment.

Less incoming radiation =/= less of every relevant radio active nuclei, you don't understand this stuff well enough to talk intelligibly about it. It's not the fault of anyone else if you don't understand the implications of the claims you make. You claimed in your last post that cosmic radiation would change dating results. With the exception of C14 dating, the only way it could do this (at least in the direction you want) is by increasing rates of decay. You are proposing that what we measure as >4 billion of years worth of decay happened in ~4 thousand years. You're saying that the energy was released a million times faster than we think, a million times more heat produced by decay would melt the crust. You're not proposing less radiation, you're proposing much, MUCH more.

3. Concede that water above the atmosphere would block radiation.

Some not all, and what it would block is already mostly blocked by the atmosphere. It would reduce the amount of radiation getting through at high altitudes but wouldn't do much at the surface. And this is all only relevant in your misunderstanding, radiation does not effect decay rates as you inadvertently propose, nor does it produce non-radiogenic isotopes. At any rate, as I showed with the C14 calibration graph, whether it would block cosmic radiation is a moot point because it didn't. A sudden increase in the cosmic radiation levels ~4000 years ago when your canopy supposedly came down would be readily apparent in those and many other measurements.

4. Concede that less radiation entering the system would change the results of radiometric dating.

As explained in 2 & 3 and in my last post: It would only have an effect on C14 dating, the methods under discussion don't use radiogenic isotopes. Furthermore, the effect (which is not found) would be accounted for in C14 calibration, so you would end up with the same result. So the answer is no cosmic radiation levels do not change the results of radiometric dating.

 

[Gnug215]

Greetings,

Just to point out that Justice Frangipane can't argue that the universe was created with the appearance of age without arguing that "God" is a trickster - which clearly contradicts the belief that "God" is PERFECT.

Kindest regards,

James

Is he in fact arguing that?

I stopped reading his posts a long time ago.

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

I figured as much.

Yes, well you were told that the conversation would end if you couldn't conduct yourself as a rational adult.

Debates are always more fun when you think you're winning aren't they?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
I guess if your criteria for winning is willfully not understanding anything said to you for long enough that you leave as ignorant as you began... Well done champ.

You talked to an atheist and came out still "believing impossible nonsense for no good reason"[that's Aron's]. This wasn't a debate, you wanted ask AronRa questions, and he was willing to answer and give you questions to help you work out what is really true. You missed an opportunity, try going back and re-reading and understanding all of Aron's answers to you then look at your own inadequate dodging responses, disingenuous questions and embarrassingly puerile claims.

The only thing you showed here was that you don't care what the truth is.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Just to point out that Justice Frangipane can't argue that the universe was created with the appearance of age without arguing that "God" is a trickster - which clearly contradicts the belief that "God" is PERFECT.

Kindest regards,

James

Is he in fact arguing that?

I stopped reading his posts a long time ago.

I don't believe he is - was(!).

HWIN had posited the possibility that he might be doing so - I just pointed out that JF couldn't do so.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I think it's clear that Justice Frangipane has been - consciously or not - indulging in "presuppositional logic": his constant questioning resembles Bruggencate's "How do you know that?"

If you wish to continue your Q&A session, Justice, you can always transfer to the original thread, where I and others will continue to help you learn to discern truth from fiction.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Justice Frangipane[/url]"]I figured as much.

It is amazing that you were able to figure that out on your own. Perhaps that is because AronRa spelled out exactly what was going to happen if you continued to duck and dodge. However, you have demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension when it came to reading AronRa’s posts, so perhaps you did not understand what he spelled out so clearly.

Debates are always more fun when you think you're winning aren't they?

:lol:

Thank you for that. I needed a good laugh. The delusion of adequacy you possess is charming.

I don't think anything I said in my last post could even be viewed as a lie. I think it was all pretty open statements. However, while I don't think you will stand behind your statement, feel free to post where you think I was lying. Although it seems like it will be a very predictable "everything you say is a lie" type of comment with no specific one arguable or defendable point.

I would not call what you were doing lying, you are simply willfully obtuse (not much better). However, Darkprophet232 pointed out a great contradiction in your post before this one. Again, I would not count that as a lie, but it does demonstrate a lack of very basic understanding of the subject you are trying to discuss. You are trying to bluff an argument against radiometric dating, without understanding the basics when it comes to radiometric dating. I would not call that a lie, but it is dishonest. I would also point out that I believe it is dishonest to agree to answer questions, yet never attempting to answer said questions.

If you choose not to respond I wish you the best and know I enjoyed my time debating with you. I did learn quite a few things from you and am grateful.

Again, it is hilarious that you are calling this a debate. You do understand that in a debate, one is supposed to respond to questions and not outright ignore them. However, I and several others (as AronRa also pointed out) are more than willing to continue giving you a free education.

Greetings,

Is he in fact arguing that?

I stopped reading his posts a long time ago.

I don't believe he is - was(!).

HWIN had posited the possibility that he might be doing so - I just pointed out that JF couldn't do so.

Kindest regards,

James

Well, he did not make that argument, but it would have to logically follow from the point he is trying to make. He either has to argue that a miracle happened and all the radioactive elements we know of releasing their energy over the course of only a few thousand years would not turn the earth into a molten hellhole or that the universe was created with the appearance of age. Either one, is a far larger assumption, by itself, than anything else combined he is fussed about thus far.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

I have not been reading this original forum (until a day or two ago) as to keep from getting distracted.

Let me start off with a few statements.

Yes, I am unfortunately fairly arrogant. It is something that I struggle with. I am often told that I am self righteous and I would agree. I have been trying to not let that get in the way too much in the conversations with Aron and have multiple times rewritten many posts to extract a lot of the cynicism and arrogance from what would naturally occur in my posts.

I also tend to get caught up in the fools game of defending myself instead of my arguments. Also a weakness and I need to keep away from being offended by how people respond here (or anywhere).

There are things that I have learned here. Of course the difficulty is in admitting those when people tend to want to write the other person off for the least of reasons possible. That said, it shouldn't affect my admission of ignorance of various things.

I need to do more research on the other types of radiometric dating as I have confused how C-14 has formed with assuming that it was a wider spreading factor. I was ignorant of that fact and will be reading up on it. There are of course other things that I have learned or been unaware of and may go into more detail later.

I have been doing hours of reading almost everyday and I can not read every post and link that everyone posts here. Its too much.

There are a lot of good questions here and I want to address them, but in total I think I've had somewhere near 60 BIG questions asked of me here and frankly that's far more than I can answer with the time I have.

I think that it is intelligent to answer one question fully before moving to the next (a point it seems Aron was not in agreement over)

If anyone would like to start another exclusive thread I'm happy to do that. But I want to get back to the Noah flood thread as I requested to put that one on hold to pander to Aron's impatience. (yes, I am frustrated with him)

I will try to reply to a few questions here as well.

I will state that my goal is not to come across arrogantly or dismissively. If I appear to be coming across as such, feel free to point it out to me (as I don't always see it) Sometimes, I may have just gotten pissed off at a comment and reacted and that's not how I want to conduct myself. I am aware that I have frequently missed the mark on that goal on this forum but am resolving to do a better job.

Thank you to everyone who IN SPITE of my arrogant comments have come back polite and objective to the conversation. That I appreciate.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

quick reply.

I have not been making the argument that God made everything with the appearance of age. I would say that it's easy to confuse the appearance of age with the age of function. If God made adam as a baby, his functionality to do the tasks God created him to immediately do wouldn't be present. If God created the stars to provide light and information, but not for another 15 billion years, they would be functionless until that time. The POINT is not the AGE it is the function of the age. God need not be a "trickster" as one might argue. Rather an intelligent being that understands far greater the purpose of various things and the necessity of various elements in the fine tuned and delicate balance of our planet.

I don't know what the benefit of radioactivity would be for adam and eve. But perhaps there was a reason that more or less radiation was needed. I don't know. I won't pretend to know. But I did want to dispel the thought that the ONLY logical conclusion to the appearance of age argument was one of God being a trickster.

I would ask that concession be made for this alternative view to the statement "God MUST be a trickster if He makes parts of his creation mature and functional (appearance of age) instead of immature and without certain functions. (appearance of "new")"

 

[Prolescum]

Wow, whodathunkit?

Awful simile time!

Reading that thread was a bit like watching Jean Luc Picard trying to explain the intricacies of warp travel to an extraordinarily dim cactus.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

I would say it is far more like Captain Kirk trying to explain the thurst mechanism in the hyper drive to a slow witted palm.

(Evil laugh.... This will split the group amongst themselves)
Muuuuuuhhoooooohaaaaaahaaaa ha
Ha

 

[Inferno]

There are things that I have learned here. Of course the difficulty is in admitting those when people tend to want to write the other person off for the least of reasons possible. That said, it shouldn't affect my admission of ignorance of various things.

This is one of my great weaknesses, but I think few of us on this forum are really bad in this regard. We frequently admit that we are wrong about something (mostly to each other, it just doesn't tend to happen with creationists) and we usually always admit when we don't know something. Knowing your limit is the first step toward knowing.

I think that it is intelligent to answer one question fully before moving to the next

I agree. The main question is: What do you want to learn about? I'll give you a few options:

Evolution in general. If so, you should start by defining evolution in a biological context.

Creationism in general. If so, you should explain your a priori assumptions. (Here's my assumption: I assume you believe the Bible or some other "holy" book is the inerrant word of God.)

Any sub-topic of either two: See the main point. (eg. the Flood, canopy "theory", atavisms, irreducible complexity, etc.)

Other questions relating to philosophy, history, chemistry (abiogenesis), physics (big bang) and so on would require completely different questions.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

quick reply.

I have not been making the argument that God made everything with the appearance of age. I would say that it's easy to confuse the appearance of age with the age of function. If God made adam as a baby, his functionality to do the tasks God created him to immediately do wouldn't be present. If God created the stars to provide light and information, but not for another 15 billion years, they would be functionless until that time. The POINT is not the AGE it is the function of the age. God need not be a "trickster" as one might argue. Rather an intelligent being that understands far greater the purpose of various things and the necessity of various elements in the fine tuned and delicate balance of our planet.

I don't know what the benefit of radioactivity would be for adam and eve. But perhaps there was a reason that more or less radiation was needed. I don't know. I won't pretend to know. But I did want to dispel the thought that the ONLY logical conclusion to the appearance of age argument was one of God being a trickster.

I would ask that concession be made for this alternative view to the statement "God MUST be a trickster if He makes parts of his creation mature and functional (appearance of age) instead of immature and without certain functions. (appearance of "new")"

You miss the point of why I said that "God" would have to be a trickster to do such a thing.

A omniscient "God" would know that we would be misled by the inherent contradiction in an apparently young Earth and a equally apparently old Earth.

Why create us in a way that we could be so misled?

It is to argue that "God" creates souls to fail and burn in Hell for all eternity - for no fault of our own but, rather, one intrinsic to our "making". Despite our allegedly being made "in His image" - which appears to imply that our "fault" is a mirror of "God's".

Such an outcome - our propensity to be misled - necessarily does not speak well of the "goodness" of "God", given such omniscience.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Justice Frangipane]

Really, I want to know almost all of it. I don't want to be ignorant of any of the topics that would come up when someone really wants to know, are there errors in the Bible? How is the age of the earth determined? What are the arguments on both sides. What are the weaknesses on both sides?

I will say that I really want to be on the side of truth. Which I, like basically everyone on this forum believes is the route that we are currently on. (or why would you be on it?) However, I do agree that there are many Many things that I WANT to be true regardless of the evidence. So yes, there won't be an EASY switch to anything for probably anyone here. Of course that is an assumption and I don't know you all. I think it would be silly to consider yourself an intelligent or informed individual and to radically change your entire world view in a few short minutes, months and sometimes even years. So I appreciate you guys being willing to share with me what you know and how you know it and how you apply what you know to get to your conclusions based off that evidence.

I am not an idiot as some have suggested. But yes, there are terms and concepts that I have yet to learn. I think that for most of us, we realize that the origin of a question has little to do with the actual validity of the question. That sometimes (not always) the questions asked by the people who have been through the same schooling (sometimes indoctrination, on both sides) that we ask the same questions over and over. Having our eyes trained to see what our brains tell it exists, or doesn't exist.

I want to start by learning more about the radioactive dating. I would also like to dispel immediately the concept that "ICE CORE" dating is not a valid dating method. One of the big issues that many people face is being told that there are Many MANY different ways that something is true, that it must be true. This is not true. There can be many MANY ways in which we come to the same wrong conclusion. Yes! I agree, it isn't how it always happens. In fact it is typically rare when mounting concurrences play towards a lie. But it does happen.

Ice core dating is one. doesn't work.
recapitulation theory is another
vestigial structures is another

Not attempting to start a war here but majority obviously doesn't define truth.. Even when its a majority of fields. I think that often people stop looking critically at the information when there is a variety of fields "verifying" the same conclusion. I think that with each additional concurrent validation people become more and more in danger of sloppy conclusions.

The value of this information is undeniably huge. I can not simply accept blindly the words of others without apply what I can to TRULY understanding the concepts behind the conclusions. I believe that most people here feel the same way.

So I would like to learn and ask questions and not be on the "other" side. I want to ask questions without being treated like an idiot for having a real question. So maybe we can try this again and see if I can present my questions in a better way.

 

[Inferno]

Well, you've managed to confuse me right there. In your first paragraph about ice core dating, you seem to suggest that it DOES work, then in your short paragraph that it DOESN'T work. I'm slightly confused, which is it?

Yes, it does work.
No, it doesn't work.

If you agree that "Yes, it does work", then we can dispel a "young earth" immediately: Ice cores go back 800,000 years.

If you do not agree that it works, aka. "No, it doesn't work", then I'd ask you to clarify why exactly you think it doesn't work.

Once you've done that and once we're done with ice core dating, we can move on to other methods of dating.