SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??

[Kenneth R.]

Statler, your facts about dating are right, but your understanding of the facts are completely delusional. And Zach hit the nail on the head with the red shift. Explain away all you want. This isn't debate. This is you using us as a sounding board to reassure yourself of your insecure opinions. Debate is what Matt, Zach, Noble Savage, et. al have been doing.

You're just very lucky I've been preoccupied with work and life for the past two days while you run amok here. Tomorrow, when I have more free time, look forward to getting Zantetsuken'd in the face with your shabby arguments. I'm not trying to be hostile, but it's hard to stifle a laugh when the ideas presented are 1. Fallacious 2. Misunderstood 3. Conjecture 4. Irrelevant 5. Beg the question.

One more note, Begging the question, unlike how most people use the phrase, doesn't mean that the argument makes you ask a question. It means that in order for anyone to follow the argument's logical steps and premises, they must already take the conclusion to be true. In short, it means you have to already believe it as a requirement to prove it. This is a basic logical fallacy.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

It doesn't have to date the earth. We can agree that the organic matter that is dated beyond 6000 years exists on the earth. Unless you're going to say that everything that is organic material (read: has some sort of life cycle, be it plant or animal) that exists beyond the 6000 year mark when earth was created is an alien life form of some sort, but that also contradicts what you have said before. So, seeing as you do not believe in alien life forms, we absolutely must assume that those plants and animals were native to the earth. Since there has been organic material dated to be older than 6000 years, the only conclusions that we can draw are:
A) The Earth is older than 6000 years old
B) Carbon Dating as a realistic measure of age is flawed
For option B to be the case, you'd have to show some very good evidence that carbon dating is not accurate. It is an accepted unit of measurement, so it has obviously been tested rigorously and yielded positive results to become accepted. Option A has ample evidence via other means of dating to support that it is over 6000 years old. I will say it again, to look at these facts and still state your firm belief that they are false without any proof is willful ignorance.

I don't care if you buy into it or not, but that makes sense to me. I think others would agree. I don't care to change your mind, but I'm pointing out how the logical train of thought works and why I really shouldn't have to explain the linking steps in the hypothesis "If carbon dating is accurate, then the earth is more than 6000 years old". It doesn't have to measure anything but organic age to make this statement true.

Then again, if you were to argue in favor of alien life forms, that would change the argument entirely

I don't have a problem with the methodology behind C14 dating, I think it is based upon false pretenses. Most young-earth scientists do not apply uniformintarianism to carbon decaying rates. We believe that certain events such as flooding can drastically alter the decay rates of carbon 14 in organic matter. During pre-flood earth a stronger magnetic field would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays thus lowering the overal concentration of radio-carbon in the atmosphere. This would in turn lower the amounts of radiocarbon in photosynthetic plants thus causing the carbon 14 dated age of pre-flood flora and fauna to be far older than their true age.
Even old-earth scientists do not believe C14 dating is very reliable and here is an example for you. Fossilized would was found in a Meristone Rock Bed in England in 2000. The layer of strata the wood was found in holds a geologic date (Jurassic) of 142-205.7 million years ago. However when the wood was C14 dated, the C14 date was only 23,000-23,500 years old. This indicates that one of the two dates is obviously incorrect. However, because science is so biast towards old earth evidence they accepted the geologic date for the wood. They also never concluded why two dates for the same piece of wood were given. However, the young earth community has theories that explain why both dates were given.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Statler, your facts about dating are right, but your understanding of the facts are completely delusional. And Zach hit the nail on the head with the red shift. Explain away all you want. This isn't debate. This is you using us as a sounding board to reassure yourself of your insecure opinions. Debate is what Matt, Zach, Noble Savage, et. al have been doing.

You're just very lucky I've been preoccupied with work and life for the past two days while you run amok here. Tomorrow, when I have more free time, look forward to getting Zantetsuken'd in the face with your shabby arguments. I'm not trying to be hostile, but it's hard to stifle a laugh when the ideas presented are 1. Fallacious 2. Misunderstood 3. Conjecture 4. Irrelevant 5. Beg the question.

One more note, Begging the question, unlike how most people use the phrase, doesn't mean that the argument makes you ask a question. It means that in order for anyone to follow the argument's logical steps and premises, they must already take the conclusion to be true. In short, it means you have to already believe it as a requirement to prove it. This is a basic logical fallacy.

It's a shame your scientific reasoning doesn't work as well as your mouth does. I see a lot of talk coming from your direction but not a lot of beef. Trust me of all the people on here you and Razoredge scare me the least. You can bring all the material you want but the very few topics I have mentioned are but the tip of the moutain of young earth research, I just started with some basic material. How would I use people who don't agree with me as springboards to re-assure my beliefs? Wanna talk about laughable. Oh yeah, I was not trying to be hostile or anything.....

 

[Kenneth R.]

1. You'd use them to reinforce your beliefs. Pat yourself on the back while you deny everything they present.
2. Yes, I've stated in two posts now that I haven't been around to refute you. That does not mean that I cannot refute you, and you will see tomorrow. From the number of your posts and the consistency of them, I assume that you do not hold a job, and are probably not old enough for one. No offense, but some of us have other things to do. This is just fun for me, I don't need you to validate my philosophical positions. I will have fun though, ripping apart what little there is to yours. BBL Wednesday.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

1. You'd use them to reinforce your beliefs. Pat yourself on the back while you deny everything they present.
2. Yes, I've stated in two posts now that I haven't been around to refute you. That does not mean that I cannot refute you, and you will see tomorrow. From the number of your posts and the consistency of them, I assume that you do not hold a job, and are probably not old enough for one. No offense, but some of us have other things to do. This is just fun for me, I don't need you to validate my philosophical positions. I will have fun though, ripping apart what little there is to yours. BBL Wednesday.

Lol, again wow, someone with over 13,000 posts over four years telling me I have way too much time on my hands when I have 142 in three years, I can't wait until Wednesday, I can tell I am dealing with some high powered intelect here. Actually I do have a job, still a full time student, and a three sport collegiate athlete. I just manage my time very effectively thank you.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Even old-earth scientists do not believe C14 dating is very reliable and here is an example for you. Fossilized would was found in a Meristone Rock Bed in England in 2000. The layer of strata the wood was found in holds a geologic date (Jurassic) of 142-205.7 million years ago. However when the wood was C14 dated, the C14 date was only 23,000-23,500 years old. This indicates that one of the two dates is obviously incorrect. However, because science is so biast towards old earth evidence they accepted the geologic date for the wood. They also never concluded why two dates for the same piece of wood were given. However, the young earth community has theories that explain why both dates were given.

This does indicate that one of the two dates is incorrect. Possibility that flooding helped to shake things up. STILL, that puts you at 17,000 years beyond your limit on the earth, thus once again not backing up your theory at all.

Also, I'm curious how you explain away my point that those dates do not put a cap on the age of the earth, they only raise the bar for how young the earth / universe can possibly be.

 

[razoredge]

Lol, again wow, someone with over 13,000 posts over four years telling me I have way too much time on my hands when I have 142 in three years, I can't wait until Wednesday, I can tell I am dealing with some high powered intelect here. Actually I do have a job, still a full time student, and a three sport collegiate athlete. I just manage my time very effectively thank you.

And you are the very definition of the word arrogant as well as many others. Honestly you've spent more time here patting yourself on the back than anything else. All of which is good, its gives people the chance to see the mindset of one type of person that lurks on the other side. You have answered more questions here than you ever addressed, which was very easy to forge and munipulate. No doubt the case with all aspects of your life.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

This does indicate that one of the two dates is incorrect. Possibility that flooding helped to shake things up. STILL, that puts you at 17,000 years beyond your limit on the earth, thus once again not backing up your theory at all.

Also, I'm curious how you explain away my point that those dates do not put a cap on the age of the earth, they only raise the bar for how young the earth / universe can possibly be.

Well with the Sedimentary Deposit and the Oceanic Salinity topics I mentioned it does put a cap on the age of the earth; because using the principle of uniformintarianism (which remember is used by all old-earth scientists because it's how they get their billions of years in the first place) at the rate of input and output of sediment into the ocean and salt into the ocean the ocean would have filled up wtih sediment if the Earth was over 12 million years old, and would have far more salt than it has now (too much to sustain life) if it was over 62 million years old. So something has to give, old-earth scientists cannot use uniformintarianism to obtain the billions of years number but then choose to ignore it when it has a much younger Earth implication. So using their own principles it is impossible for the Earth to be even close to 4 billion years old.

The same is true for the universe, spiral galaxies turn obviously, but the inner stars acclerate faster than the outer ones creating the spiral effect we observe; if the universe was over 300 million years old these galaxies would have collapsed on themselves.

As for being 17,000 years short with the C14 dating of that fossilized wood; this would be the case if the young earth theory about the flood and magnetic field jacking up carbon amounts is incorrect I will admit that.

Does all that make sense Zach?

 

[razoredge]

so does this 6000 year planet also dismiss the last ice age ? The carving of entire mountain ranges by glaciers ? Large gravel deposits at high elevations ? Not to mention finding fossil rock containing critters in my back yard 1600 feet above current sea levels that have tumbled down the stream from higher ? All that in 6000 years........ impressive

not that sedimentary fossil rock at much higher elevations than current sea levels indicates the earth has undergone a cycle of recarving sediment from its ocean floors........

the most depressing part of the whole thing to me is people make really good money tossing these theorys back and forth, even creating new ones to do so, but never produce one tangable object their entire life that contributes to the needs of socioty

Me - find rock with odd imprints in back yard "oh look... how nice I think I will place it on top of my rock wall" then gets back to productive work

Brainiac - find rock with odd imprints in back yard - gets volunteer to carry rock, then solicits millions of dollars to study said rock for his lifetime, so as not to have to get the fuck back to work

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Well with the Sedimentary Deposit and the Oceanic Salinity topics I mentioned it does put a cap on the age of the earth; because using the principle of uniformintarianism (which remember is used by all old-earth scientists because it's how they get their billions of years in the first place) at the rate of input and output of sediment into the ocean and salt into the ocean the ocean would have filled up wtih sediment if the Earth was over 12 million years old, and would have far more salt than it has now (too much to sustain life) if it was over 62 million years old. So something has to give, old-earth scientists cannot use uniformintarianism to obtain the billions of years number but then choose to ignore it when it has a much younger Earth implication. So using their own principles it is impossible for the Earth to be even close to 4 billion years old.

The same is true for the universe, spiral galaxies turn obviously, but the inner stars acclerate faster than the outer ones creating the spiral effect we observe; if the universe was over 300 million years old these galaxies would have collapsed on themselves.

As for being 17,000 years short with the C14 dating of that fossilized wood; this would be the case if the young earth theory about the flood and magnetic field jacking up carbon amounts is incorrect I will admit that.

Does all that make sense Zach?

No, makes no sense at all. I literally just woke up and am checking my email and shit, so I'm a little groggy (pardon me) but if I'm reading what you say correctly, this doesn't take into account any of the changes that take place. For example, you yourself have said that you cannot get matter from non-matter, so there's a finite amount of material that can be deposited. So if sediment is being deposited, it comes from somewhere yes? It's simply being shifted around (on a global scale). Again, i just woke up so I still have to think on it, but again no, it doesn't seem like a satisfactory response to me. Don't take that as me being a dick either, I'm not saying you are wrong, but it just doesn't seem to work.

 

[1by4by9]

I remember reading from somewhere that the suspected reason for stable salinity in oceans is because there are these eruption gaps at the bottom of the ocean which filter the salt away (similar to the aquarium filter.) They're not perhaps the only factor that decreases the salinity though.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Ok, i'm a bit more awake. So i'll try to get this a bit more in depth.

Well with the Sedimentary Deposit and the Oceanic Salinity topics I mentioned it does put a cap on the age of the earth; because using the principle of uniformintarianism (which remember is used by all old-earth scientists because it's how they get their billions of years in the first place) at the rate of input and output of sediment into the ocean and salt into the ocean the ocean would have filled up wtih sediment if the Earth was over 12 million years old, and would have far more salt than it has now (too much to sustain life) if it was over 62 million years old. So something has to give, old-earth scientists cannot use uniformintarianism to obtain the billions of years number but then choose to ignore it when it has a much younger Earth implication. So using their own principles it is impossible for the Earth to be even close to 4 billion years old.

First of all, I don't have a ton of knowledge of any of this, but I took a few minutes to look into the principal of uniformitarianism. I'm no expert, but it looks like you are misrepresenting the principal slightly. The principal of uniformitarianism seems to state that the same laws of physics apply to all times and places in the known universe, therefore we can use this knowledge of things such as erosion and gradual build up in geology to interpret the signs that have been left behind over the years. This, of course, does not mean there are no outside forces that could possibly disrupt the natural course. Razoredge brought up the relevant point of the Ice Ages that would cause changes that are natural for that climate, but not necessarily natural in our day and age. Another such example would be a great flood, which there is lots of evidence of (not just geologically but also stories in nearly every culture). These are just two examples of things that will "shake things up" so to speak. Uniformitarianism doesn't seem to imply that things will be constant at all times and thus we can gather lots of information, but rather it shows that under a set of circumstances, physics will dictate things to act in a defined way. I'm probably explaining it poorly and that's my shortcoming for not having all the knowledge of terminology and so forth, but if i understand it correctly that is the basics of the theory. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the sediment has been collecting consistently throughout the entire history of the world and thus, it is not "impossible" for the earth to be 4 billion years old.

The same is true for the universe, spiral galaxies turn obviously, but the inner stars acclerate faster than the outer ones creating the spiral effect we observe; if the universe was over 300 million years old these galaxies would have collapsed on themselves.

... and I will not dispute this as a very real possibility since i don't know enough about physics or astronamy. But you're forgetting that first of all, spiral galaxies are not the only types of galaxies in the universe. Also, once again you're making the false assumption that just because something is not there anymore doesn't mean it is impossible for it to have existed at some point. Furthermore, stars die and are born all the time and thus (i am assuming, please tell me if i'm making an error) would effect everything involved with the galaxy. Just think of it as though the earth lost or gained a satalite (in the sense of a moon, not sputnik)... more than likely the gravitational difference would have some effect on the rotation of the earth on its axis or its rotation around the sun. I don't know if a handful of stars in a galaxy could have such a drastic effect, just throwing it out there.

Also, again I don't know a lot about the ins and outs, but i do know that galaxies themselves take 2-3 billion years just to get to the point where they even resemble galaxies. Remember once again that the Big Bang theory is not a clown car theory... it in no way implies that anything just winked into existance as a star or as a planet.

Again, I don't feel like i'm making my point very clear, so if you have questions i might be able to be more coherent in an hour or two. I still think that if you read my posts and think about what i'm saying, it'll make some sense.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Lol, all matter is the age of the Earth, you can't go out and just buy yourself some matter at the drugstore. I am not sure where you are making these atoms at but I would love to see it done. Oh yeah and do you have any references to back your argument up? I supplied mine....waiting.....

Have you ever seen a meteor? That material is not from earth and thus is either A.) Older or B.) Newer.

Depending on where it came from. Whoops.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

And actually, to build on Ken's point, all matter is actually the age of the universe, not the earth.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Oh good you're back I knew you had too much of a scientific mind to run from the discussion. I am not trying to be mean or anything, I would just rather discuss all of this like adults than get laughed at before you guys even let me make my case. Well the young earth scientists don't believe that strata is as accurate of a time reference as the old earth folks do due to Polystratic Fossils and Strata deformation. I am going to look into your question though and see if I can find an answer. It's a good question, but so also is "If T-rex is really 65 million years old then how come red-blood cells that can only last 10,000 years maximum be found in his newly discovered bones in Alaska?"

Ever seen a frozen mammoth?

I don't have a problem with the methodology behind C14 dating, I think it is based upon false pretenses. Most young-earth scientists do not apply uniformintarianism to carbon decaying rates. We believe that certain events such as flooding can drastically alter the decay rates of carbon 14 in organic matter. During pre-flood earth a stronger magnetic field would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays thus lowering the overal concentration of radio-carbon in the atmosphere. This would in turn lower the amounts of radiocarbon in photosynthetic plants thus causing the carbon 14 dated age of pre-flood flora and fauna to be far older than their true age.
Even old-earth scientists do not believe C14 dating is very reliable and here is an example for you. Fossilized would was found in a Meristone Rock Bed in England in 2000. The layer of strata the wood was found in holds a geologic date (Jurassic) of 142-205.7 million years ago. However when the wood was C14 dated, the C14 date was only 23,000-23,500 years old. This indicates that one of the two dates is obviously incorrect. However, because science is so biast towards old earth evidence they accepted the geologic date for the wood. They also never concluded why two dates for the same piece of wood were given. However, the young earth community has theories that explain why both dates were given.

The Earth's magnetic field is generated by the rotation of the core with respect to the mantle/crust. It has zero to do with flooding. Have a nice day.

Lol, again wow, someone with over 13,000 posts over four years telling me I have way too much time on my hands when I have 142 in three years, I can't wait until Wednesday, I can tell I am dealing with some high powered intelect here. Actually I do have a job, still a full time student, and a three sport collegiate athlete. I just manage my time very effectively thank you.

And I know you love credentials, despite how useless they are. So I'll just go ahead and tell you that I majored in Electrical Engineering and nearly double minored in Physics and Mathematics.

Oh, and I'd also like to mention that significant changes to our magnetic field would result in significant changes to the environment as a result of a change to the level of solar radiation that penetrates the stronger/weaker field. There is no evidence that this ever happened in any fossil data, including bones, strata, or petrified trees/animal/plant life.

And for another tidbit for thought: If carbon dating is so unreliable and nobody believes it works, then why, in this digital technology age of 2008, do we still use it so often and with such stunningly accurate results?

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Swabs: Society's morals are largely based on religious morals. It is good to think for yourself. I would not want anyone not to.

Bullshit. Complete and total bullshit. There are so many different religions with different moral expectaions. Aztecs, for example believed in human sacrifice, cannibalism, all that fun stuff. There are plenty of religions that advocate murder. Our conciences however, dictate "society's" morals, not what Jesus/God said.

And if you (in general, not you, Kenneth) honestly interperet the bible word for word and believe the planet is 6,000 years old you are insane. I really don't think there needs to be much discussion on the matter.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Actually my post accomplishes two things. The first of all it shows just how difficult dating the Earth is because of all the different dates my topics produced. The second is that is shows that though these numbers are all way different, they are all far closer to my 6000 year estimate than your 4,000,000,000 year estimate. The problem with your side of the argument is they ascribe to only the oldest date ever found for the Earth, yielded by radio-metric dating. Yet, the other 5 dating methods conducted on the Earth all yielded much lower numbers, the lowest number being 6000 years with the Magnetic Field Decay method. So my position is no less valid than your's, I ascribe to the lowest number yielded, you ascribe to the very highest number yielded. I don't care if you guys gang up on the Creationist, this is my strongest field and I have hundreds of publications to pull from so I am not worried in the least.

No, your OPINION is no less valid than his. If I take your argument into consideration, then as you said, dating is difficult, and I believe neither of you. How is picking the youngest date any different than picking the oldest date? You'd both be choosing outliers of the data. Furthermore, you've just admitted that none of this is your own research or belief, but that you're relying heavily on the work of others, who you by appeal to authority automatically believe must be 1. Telling the truth and 2. Correct in their research. You're begging the question again.

So yes, you've shown once again that you can be just as foolish as the kind of people you are trying to debunk. It's he said she said. I wonder when you'll grow out of it and present a real argument instead of "your position is ridiculous. Here's another ridiculous position. So we're both valid". For your future reference, this is a FALLACY. It does not validate either position.

Bullshit. Complete and total bullshit. There are so many different religions with different moral expectaions. Aztecs, for example believed in human sacrifice, cannibalism, all that fun stuff. There are plenty of religions that advocate murder. Our conciences however, dictate "society's" morals, not what Jesus/God said.

Sorry I forgot the word "modern" and thought it would be obvious. When you look at the percentage of the world's religions, you'll find that nearly a 3rd are Christians (or say they are) and most of the rest fall under Hindu, Muslim, etc. While these religions differ, their basic tenets of good will and virtue strongly influence the societies in the regions where they are prevalent, and we can clearly see that today. I also noted that "most" of society is influenced. I did not say everyone. The social framework of many countries, even secular ones, is largely based on religious morality ascribed to by the people living there. In India for example, there are laws set to protect Cows because they are believed sacred animals. Many American businesses are either closed or open short hours on Sunday.

Yeah, 6000yr old Earth reads insanity to me. The bible was not meant to be interpreted word for word literally.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Sorry I forgot the word "modern" and thought it would be obvious. When you look at the percentage of the world's religions, you'll find that nearly a 3rd are Christians (or say they are) and most of the rest fall under Hindu, Muslim, etc. While these religions differ, their basic tenets of good will and virtue strongly influence the societies in the regions where they are prevalent, and we can clearly see that today. I also noted that "most" of society is influenced. I did not say everyone. The social framework of many countries, even secular ones, is largely based on religious morality ascribed to by the people living there. In India for example, there are laws set to protect Cows because they are believed sacred animals. Many American businesses are either closed or open short hours on Sunday.

There are still cultures that practice cannibalism/human sacrifice so once again...bullshit.You don't mean modern, you mean "popular". One can even make the argument that religion in itself requires human sacrifce because you are giving your life to whatever deity you worship. The basic "tenets" are based on our collective conciences (yanno, our natural instinctual ability to feel remorse, sorrow, anger, empathy etc) coupled with what went on during those times. Christianity says if you eat shellfish you are commiting an abomination. It also says that you can own slaves etc.


If you're honestly going say that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism (the big "modern 5") lay down universal moral laws (such a thing doesn't exist), you need to open your mind a bit. lol

 

[Kenneth R.]

Once again, I'm not saying you have to believe in anything. Don't confuse me with Statler.
I am saying that most people are influenced by society. They are brought up a certain way and they believe what they are told. This goes for any kind of society, even your cannibal ones. Secondly, society, by its nature, is influenced in turn by the beliefs of the people. Thus the cycle continues and it is difficult to alter the framework of a particular culture's beliefs because they reinforce it themselves. That in mind, the "big 5" account for a lot of believers around the world. Moreso than any cannibal culture. This leads to my comment, which was that since a majority of people are believers, a majority of people influence society, and in turn are influenced by it, and you've got a culture (a different one for each region) that is basically in harmony with the local religions. You can say that religion requires sacrifice, but that's just more evidence that social morality can be influenced by religion.

It was a simple comment that while you may not ascribe your morality to a religous social influence, many people do.

 

[Wander]

That's just what I don't get in Statler's arguments.

(these are not facts, just how stupid this debate feels)

Let's say one method gives Earth age of 4 billion years. Ok. another says that it's 6000. Ok. Other methods give numbers between these numbers. Let's say that these numbers are for example 40 000 years, 500 000 years and 30 million years. I think that if so many methods give a number ABOVE 6000 years (which is the lowest number), Earth being older than 6000 years seems certain. In this light, 4 billion years makes much more sense than 6000 years, which doesnt' make sense at all.

It doesn't even matter that I am an atheist (or agnostic). The whole theory of Earth being 6000 years old is nonsense. I am only 16 years old, I haven't studied much of the shit you people may have studied, but I still find it easy to draw this conclusion. and Kenneth's, Noble Savage's, Zach's etc. arguments simply make much more sense than Waldorf's.

I'm not really going to give any real arguments anymore though. Ken and others do it better than I do.