Page 163 of 165 FirstFirst ... 63113153161162163164165 LastLast
Results 1,621 to 1,630 of 1649

Thread: Testing Creationism.

  1. #1621
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    The Great South Land
    Posts
    1,909
    Thanks
    263
    Thanked 324 Times in 267 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    A review of what goes into intellectual honesty (and investigative rigour, for that matter)
    would certainly be in order for SS. It is for all of us, for that matter.
    Snark!
    Have a good day!
    Still small

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Still small For This Useful Post:

    Dottie (05-18-2017)

  3. #1622
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    The Great South Land
    Posts
    1,909
    Thanks
    263
    Thanked 324 Times in 267 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogerh View Post
    Taikoo;

    Is this correct?

    A core taken from a 10,000 year old tree would show different C14 dates in samples taken at different distances from the center. The living surface layer would reflect the C14 level of current air.

    Roger
    That is an interesting question. Unfortunately, it bears no relationship to the topic of 'Old Tjikko' being discussed, as the article states that the testing was done on the root system, which does not have 'heartwood', the dead centre. Besides, wouldn't any 'dating' be an average of the 14C/12C present? The sort of thing which usually gives rise to cries of contamination.

    Have a good day!
    Still small

  4. #1623
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts.
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 151 Times in 138 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    Nol spend a few years at school. You might develop a more critical mind. Let me help you with your parroted-based bias, and selective knowledge. Only an idiot would say that when we look at the light from a distant galaxy, we are seeing that galaxy as it is now(real time). Only an idiot would claim that we have no idea at how fast light can travel in a vacuum or any other medium. Only an idiot would assume that distance and time are absolutes(ignoring Relativity). Only an idiot would ignore how gravity effects the relativistic view of our Universe. Remember Gravity pulling in one direction is the same as acceleration in the other direction. This means that Gravity effects all measurements in time and space, and also warps space-time itself. So what, you might ask! It is in our understanding of relativity that provides us with the cosmological framework from which we can decipher the Universe. It allows us to understand "celestial mechanics", predict the existence of black holes, and chart the distant objects within our universe. Please learn the entire puzzle, not just a piece of it. Anyone can find anything they want, over the internet. But to actually develop an overall understanding of cosmology, requires at least an OPEN MIND, not a closed MIND SET. Lets move on.

    All studies(Gravitational Lensing, Quasar Spectra, WMAP and Planck's Satellites, the Cosmological Constant, and the CMBR) have so far demonstrated that our Universe is FLAT. Because of the density of our Universe(including dark matter), most scientist believe that the expansion rate will slow down gradually, over an infinite amount of time. Thus, the universe is considered flat and infinite in size. I personally disagree, but side with the evidence. It is the speed of light that limits our viewing of the volume of the Universe visible since the Big Bang. Scientist can only see 13.8 billion light-years(or less) from Earth. This doesn't mean that the size of our Universe is 13.8 Billion light years across. Now the rest of my lecture might test your comprehension skills, and is something that I was truly trying to avoid.

    When you speak of an expanding void, or an expanding space-time, or anything moving faster than the speed of light, you do not truly understand what you are saying. But this is expected given the level of understanding that is needed on this subject. If you did understand, you would realize that space-time cannot move at all, and that there is no such thing as a real void. Where would space-time expand into, since there is no void? Space-time includes all of space and all of time. Please remember that last statement. In case you have already forgotten, the General Theory of Relativity is a completely deterministic theory. This means that space-time includes everything past, present, future, all of "space", and all at the same time. Are you still with me? It is an assumption made in Cosmology, based on the Universe's homogeneity(even distribution of matter) and isotropy(even distribution of temperature), and that space-time decomposes into a one-parameter foliation(layers) by space-like hyper-surfaces of constant curvature. It is these space-like hyper-surfaces that play the role of "space" and the time-like parameter that plays the role of "time". In this setting, it is "space" that is expanding in the sense that points related by the time-like parameter, can be seen as increasing in distance from one another. Remember, it is "space", not space-time, that is expanding. This means that it is only the 3 dimensional portion(SPATIAL) of our 4 dimensional reality that is expanding, in a flattish, open, infinite Universe. Still with me?

    So for the intellectually challenged, let me reiterate. Think of it this way. Before the BB. there was no 4 dimensional reality. Once the BB occurred, space-time existed. Here's the hard concept. All time and space(past, present, and future) also came into existence, after the moment of the BB. But due to General Relativity, we are limited to only observing the past, not the present(to a small degree because of our limited senses, and being the observer), or our future(because of our mass constraints). If you remember nothing, please remember that the universe is not expanding at a velocity greater than c. In fact neither the universe or its expansion have any velocity at all. What is occurring is that the volume of a parameterized set of 3-dimensional space-like hyper-surfaces, is what's increasing. Also, their related points are receding from one another at speeds, only relative to their time-like parameter and the metric on their hyper-surfaces. This they inherited from the entire space-time manifold. This is what's expanding in excess of c. Do you now understand Nol? Somehow I doubt it. So I guess I will still hear more parroted, regurgitated, creationist nonsense. Is it possible for you to convince these lettered experts to come on this forum, so that we can talk with them? They maybe experts, but that doesn't mean they are correct. No idea is absolutely true or absolutely false. The idea that is more consistently supported by the facts, is more probable then the ideas that are not consistently supported by any independent facts. Don
    Nol spend a few years at school. You might develop a more critical mind. Let me help you with your parroted-based bias, and selective knowledge. Only an idiot would say that when we look at the light from a distant galaxy, we are seeing that galaxy as it is now(real time)
    Well as I didn't say that Go find who did. I said that the light from that distant galaxy shined 13.4 by ago and is now just reaching us. It was then 13.4 billion light years away. It has gone deeper since we know that. But the problem yiou evo s have in your cosmology is that the BB was supposed to have happened c. 13.8 billion years ago. So in just 400 million years by your theories, that galaxy started as a blip in the big bang- was hurled into space- formed itself into a galaxy, travelled 13.4 billion light years to shine the light we are seeing just now! Lots of activity and lots and lots of speed -it had to have travelled 33X the speed of light to get 13.4 billion light years away in just 400 million years!

    Remember Gravity pulling in one direction is the same as acceleration in the other direction. This means that Gravity effects all measurements in time and space
    Yep! learned that one decades ago!

    Only an idiot would claim that we have no idea at how fast light can travel in a vacuum or any other medium
    Then you consider that {HD evo I quoted from an idiot.

    Only an idiot would assume that distance and time are absolutes(ignoring Relativity).
    Dag gummit- I knew that too!

    When you speak of an expanding void, or an expanding space-time, or anything moving faster than the speed of light, you do not truly understand what you are saying. But this is expected given the level of understanding that is needed on this subject. If you did understand, you would realize that space-time cannot move at all, and that there is no such thing as a real void. Where would space-time expand into, since there is no void? Space-time includes all of space and all of time.
    Now see you disagree with evolutionary cosmology and creation cosmology! Space /time had a specific beginning. That is why evos dumped the minute fragment for the singularity for a non existent singularity! Because to have any matter, requires psace and space requires time so they were stuck with eternal matter!

    Well I found three articles from PHD evo cosmologists who all declared the void of space is expanding.

    and that there is no such thing as a real void.
    any place where no matter exists is a real void! The universe is loaded with it!

    based on the Universe's homogeneity(even distribution of matter) and isotropy(even distribution of temperature)
    You have not been keeping uip over the last 25 years- it has been empirically shown that the universe is not homogenous- but very lumpy!

    http://www.icr.org/article/big-bang-theory-collapses/

    you would realize that space-time cannot move at all,
    That is what I believe, but an evo PHD who is a cosmologist UCSC says that space itself (the void which matter exists in) is expanding!

    If you remember nothing, please remember that the universe is not expanding at a velocity greater than c
    I already believed that. Iws quoting a PHD evo cosmologist who is a professor!

    So I guess I will still hear more parroted, regurgitated, creationist nonsense.
    Your barrage of ad-hominems notwithstanding- I pretty much followed you all the way.

    Is it possible for you to convince these lettered experts to come on this forum, so that we can talk with them? They maybe experts, but that doesn't mean they are correct.
    Why don't you ask them? They will answer an email form you as they would with me. But try to not hurl your constasnt insults, they just might think you are a 10 year old and not take you seriously.

    And you know your lettered experts may be wrong as well!

    The idea that is more consistently supported by the facts, is more probable then the ideas that are not consistently supported by any independent facts. Don
    Oh I agree! And your entire next to the last paragraph does not contain one verified fact. It is all conjecture based on advanced physics and our limited view and a naturalistic worldview! Facts are established when verified by observation testing and repeating. How can you test soemthing you cannot go out and verify???????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????

  5. #1624
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,961
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    Snark!
    Have a good day!
    Still small
    Not at all. It is utterly sincere, and applies to all of us, me included.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Taikoo For This Useful Post:

    Still small (05-17-2017)

  7. #1625
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,961
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    That is an interesting question. Unfortunately, it bears no relationship to the topic of 'Old Tjikko' being discussed, as the article states that the testing was done on the root system, which does not have 'heartwood', the dead centre. Besides, wouldn't any 'dating' be an average of the 14C/12C present? The sort of thing which usually gives rise to cries of contamination.

    Have a good day!
    Still small
    The typical Carbon-14 dating method only tests dead organic matter. (link and Wiki). Such dating methods only determine the length of time since the plant or animal died.
    I see you tacitly agree that one could date the heartwood of a living tree, thus contradicting yourself regarding the above error.

    Of course, the mature xylem of a living root is, like the heartwood of a tree, not living.
    So root / trunk is irrelevant.

    Your ICR thinks the plant was never alive in the first place.


    During Day Three of Creation Week, God commanded the inanimate earth to "bring forth plants" (Genesis 1:11,12), while on Day Five, He "created...every living creature that moveth" (v. 21). At this point, and on Day Six to follow, He instituted the concept of giving "life" (Hebrew nephesh) to non-living matter—something He did not do for plants. This required supernatural creation, and the resultant living animal kingdom was something new and different from all that had gone on before.

    The Bible never refers to plants as living. They may "grow," or "flourish," but they do not "live." Neither do they "die." The Bible teaches that they may "wither," or "fade," but not "die," since they are not "alive," having neither "life"
    Last edited by Taikoo; 05-17-2017 at 06:38 AM.

  8. #1626
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,961
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=Still small;1325096]
    Hang on, it was you that originally asserted the 1% without any supportive data. So "put up or . . . "
    Why sure; fair is fair.

    1%
    Understanding Living Tree Cells. Only 1% of a typical mature tree when dormant is actually is biologically living while the rest is composed of non-living, structural wood cells. Very little of a tree's woody volume is composed of "living, metabolizing" tissue.Nov 8, 2016
    How Much of a Tree is Living Tissue - ThoughtCo

    https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearn...p8&sh=a3ac7214



    Regarding the 14C and dead organisms, why didn't you read the number of links that I included at the time. If you didn't read them then, why should I go to all the trouble of reposting something you are again not likely to read.
    I looked at them. Nothing there contradicts what I have been trying to get you to understand.

    Actually, I think you do understand it, but just cant admit I was right and you are wrong.

    You seem to tacitly admit that one could radiocarbon date the heartwood of a living tree, tho you elsewhere assert that it can only be done on a non living organism.

    Lets try again to see if "intellectual honesty" is in you.

    Do you admit that my figure of 1% is reasonable, while your "considerably more" is not?

    Do you admit that you statement about C14 only for an organism after it dies is inaccurate?


    Have a good day!
    Smarm!

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Taikoo For This Useful Post:

    Stephen T-B (05-17-2017)

  10. #1627
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,218
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 209 Times in 169 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolidad View Post
    Well as I didn't say that Go find who did. I said that the light from that distant galaxy shined 13.4 by ago and is now just reaching us. It was then 13.4 billion light years away. It has gone deeper since we know that. But the problem yiou evo s have in your cosmology is that the BB was supposed to have happened c. 13.8 billion years ago. So in just 400 million years by your theories, that galaxy started as a blip in the big bang- was hurled into space- formed itself into a galaxy, travelled 13.4 billion light years to shine the light we are seeing just now! Lots of activity and lots and lots of speed -it had to have travelled 33X the speed of light to get 13.4 billion light years away in just 400 million years!



    Yep! learned that one decades ago!



    Then you consider that {HD evo I quoted from an idiot.



    Dag gummit- I knew that too!



    Now see you disagree with evolutionary cosmology and creation cosmology! Space /time had a specific beginning. That is why evos dumped the minute fragment for the singularity for a non existent singularity! Because to have any matter, requires psace and space requires time so they were stuck with eternal matter!

    Well I found three articles from PHD evo cosmologists who all declared the void of space is expanding.



    any place where no matter exists is a real void! The universe is loaded with it!



    You have not been keeping uip over the last 25 years- it has been empirically shown that the universe is not homogenous- but very lumpy!

    http://www.icr.org/article/big-bang-theory-collapses/



    That is what I believe, but an evo PHD who is a cosmologist UCSC says that space itself (the void which matter exists in) is expanding!



    I already believed that. Iws quoting a PHD evo cosmologist who is a professor!



    Your barrage of ad-hominems notwithstanding- I pretty much followed you all the way.



    Why don't you ask them? They will answer an email form you as they would with me. But try to not hurl your constasnt insults, they just might think you are a 10 year old and not take you seriously.

    And you know your lettered experts may be wrong as well!



    Oh I agree! And your entire next to the last paragraph does not contain one verified fact. It is all conjecture based on advanced physics and our limited view and a naturalistic worldview! Facts are established when verified by observation testing and repeating. How can you test soemthing you cannot go out and verify???????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????
    Hiding behind PhD's is what you creationist do very well, since you don't have any knowledge of your own. Oh, other than hiding in the shadows when direct observational evidence is impossible. Bring these so-called PhD's onto this forum so I can query their understanding. Why am I wasting my time talking to you? You seem to have understood very little of my post. I told you, it is space that is expanding, NOT SPACE-TIME. At some point in time, will you ever present your own evidence to support your beliefs? It is obvious YOU (not these experts you hide behind) haven't a clue what you're talking about. And your understanding is even worse. Remember this thread is called testing creationism, so please give us something to test? I'm wasting my time and knowledge talking to a closed mind. Don

  11. #1628
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    The Great South Land
    Posts
    1,909
    Thanks
    263
    Thanked 324 Times in 267 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=Taikoo;1325313]
    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post

    Why sure; fair is fair.

    1%
    Understanding Living Tree Cells. Only 1% of a typical mature tree when dormant is actually is biologically living while the rest is composed of non-living, structural wood cells. Very little of a tree's woody volume is composed of "living, metabolizing" tissue.Nov 8, 2016
    How Much of a Tree is Living Tissue - ThoughtCo

    https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearn...p8&sh=a3ac7214


    I looked at them. Nothing there contradicts what I have been trying to get you to understand.

    Actually, I think you do understand it, but just cant admit I was right and you are wrong.

    You seem to tacitly admit that one could radiocarbon date the heartwood of a living tree, tho you elsewhere assert that it can only be done on a non living organism.

    Lets try again to see if "intellectual honesty" is in you.

    Do you admit that my figure of 1% is reasonable, while your "considerably more" is not?

    Do you admit that you statement about C14 only for an organism after it dies is inaccurate?
    I shall concede and apologise in relation to the '1%' comments and I also shall concede and apologise regarding the 'living/non-living' comments until I do further investigation as applying to living trees. Though, I would like your comments in regards to my point of results of 14C on tree cores of 'living' trees being an average or of contamination.

    Smarm!
    Irrespective of your opinion, my desire in closing of wanting you (and everyone) to 'have a good day' is always genuine.

    Have a good day!
    Still small

  12. #1629
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,961
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=Still small;1325498]

    I shall concede and apologise in relation to the '1%' comments and I also shall concede and apologise regarding the 'living/non-living' comments until I do further investigation as applying to living trees.
    I dont want an apology, none is called for. Your acceptance of the mistake you made
    raises you a great deal in my estimation.

    Though, I would like your comments in regards to my point of results of 14C on tree cores of 'living' trees being an average or of contamination.
    Without reading it, i'd say that procedural errors are a problem, and great care is
    always called for. I very much doubt that there is such difficulty in getting an uncontaminated sample from the heartwood of, say, a redwood tree that no
    reliable dating can be done. In the event, the date would be skewed to a younger date, not an older one.

    I will take a look at the subject tho.

    Irrespective of your opinion, my desire in closing of wanting you (and everyone) to 'have a good day' is always genuine.
    My phrasing that you took for snark, likewise.

    We have a poster who routinely rephrases (converts) others' words to suit her, on the basis of unique insight into their true thoughts.

    More genteel persons should refrain from interpretation of others' intent.

  13. #1630
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    33,721
    Thanks
    4,390
    Thanked 5,663 Times in 4,733 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    Irrespective of your opinion, my desire in closing of wanting you (and everyone) to 'have a good day' is always genuine.

    Have a good day!
    Still small
    Do you wish everyone a good day? Do you think God wishes everyone a good day? Just thinking about it. If a "good day" consists of being able to be snarky, destroy truth, put others down, say lies about others, make sure the guilty get off, is it right to wish that person a "good day?" Do you think Jesus would have wished the Jewish leaders who arrested him, had him beaten and crucified a good day as they were actually having a great day? I know some fairly ruthless people personally. I would not wish them a good day as a "good day" to them is when they get what they want regardless of destroying others. Did Jesus wish everyone a "good day?" Would he have wanted to do so?
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •