Enoch2021 Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 10, 2014 No, its not "Good". It's an appeal to ridicule. You seem to be referencing radiometric dating. Step 1 would be to observewhat the acutal decay of the isotopes is. Now, that known, tell me about step 2. ============================================================ I'm not ridiculing you Jerry, just showing a stepwise process. Well you don't actually see the decay rates of elements. They are basically an extrapolation superimposed over said "Rock or Whatever" and could be impacted by a number of factors. Specifically in this case, you have NO CLUE of : When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms . There are 2 other unknowns that can't be tested....because they are all in the past. And you already have documented errors with Rocks of known ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I'm not ridiculing you Jerry, just showing a stepwise process. I didn't take it as a personal ridicule. Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy wherein one presents the opposing argument as absurd, ridiculous or laughable. The steps in your previous example were exactly that as they nowhere near approximated the steps used for radiometric dating and only attempted to make the my argument look foolish. Well you don't actually see the decay rates of elements. They are basically an extrapolation superimposed over said "Rock or Whatever" and could be impacted by a number of factors. Specifically in this case, you have NO CLUE of : When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms . There are 2 other unknowns that can't be tested....because they are all in the past. And you already have documented errors with Rocks of known ages. This makes no sense...we can measure in laboratories the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. We use that knowlede for practical everyday uses. How can you day we can't "see" the decay rates? What do you mean by "see"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 10, 2014 =========================================================================== ??? I do not follow. What are you not following Specifically??? And as far as Tesla, I just realized I don't think I really care what people think of him at all. I'm not really an anti Tesla-ite or anything. The FBI (Government) sure had a "thing" for Tesla. Anti "Tesla-ite"..... that is too funny. This was my point,...... "We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture" Hannes Alfven PhD, Noble Prize Physics 1970 We're gonna touch on some of that "imaginary conjecture" over the next few weeks and beyond. We'll start off today with a subject that, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been talked about @ all....The Nebular Hypothesis. Hopefully, most know it's a Laugher....but you never can tell. We're doing no such thing, but enjoy. Once again none of this is relevant to the observation I made in the OP that I can tell. Do you disagree there is amazing order, on every level we can investigate, in the universe that is hard to explain if atheism is true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 10, 2014 We're doing no such thing, but enjoy. Once again none of this is relevant to the observation I made in the OP that I can tell. Do you disagree there is amazing order, on every level we can investigate, in the universe that is hard to explain if atheism is true? ====================================================== Do you disagree there is amazing order, on every level we can investigate, in the universe that is hard to explain if atheism is true? No. In fact, I'll go a many magnitudes higher than "amazing order"....The "Specific Complexity" is the overriding factor in the matter We're doing no such thing, Well maybe not you personally but it's happening on a Massive Collective Scale as evidenced by the evidences that have been (and will be posted) on these threads. And you can't speak for "Everyone". Once again none of this is relevant to the observation I made in the OP that I can tell. It was not my intent to derail your OP. Forgive me, I will shut up until spoken to.....caveat: Unless I see Unsupported Conjectures/Falsehoods/or Undermining of the Word Of GOD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 10, 2014 No. In fact, I'll go a many magnitudes higher than "amazing order"....The "Specific Complexity" is the overriding factor in the matter Can you cite Specific Complexity? When I try to look it up, everyting defaults to "Specified Complexity". thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 10, 2014 No. In fact, I'll go a many magnitudes higher than "amazing order"....The "Specific Complexity" is the overriding factor in the matter Can you cite Specific Complexity? When I try to look it up, everyting defaults to "Specified Complexity". thanks ============================================================================ Should be the same thing/concept. I think William Dembski produced some Lit on it...could be mistaken, however. I thought I explained this to you before, No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 10, 2014 We're doing no such thing, but enjoy. Once again none of this is relevant to the observation I made in the OP that I can tell. Do you disagree there is amazing order, on every level we can investigate, in the universe that is hard to explain if atheism is true? ====================================================== Do you disagree there is amazing order, on every level we can investigate, in the universe that is hard to explain if atheism is true? No. In fact, I'll go a many magnitudes higher than "amazing order"....The "Specific Complexity" is the overriding factor in the matter We're doing no such thing, Well maybe not you personally but it's happening on a Massive Collective Scale as evidenced by the evidences that have been (and will be posted) on these threads. And you can't speak for "Everyone". Once again none of this is relevant to the observation I made in the OP that I can tell. It was not my intent to derail your OP. Forgive me, I will shut up until spoken to.....caveat: Unless I see Unsupported Conjectures/Falsehoods/or Undermining of the Word Of GOD I'm not speaking for everyone, but I am not interested in having my threads derailed anymore by off topic things. I'm also not interested in you advertising your threads in mine so much. If you agree with what I said, and it seems like you do given your agreement to my questions, I have no idea why you'd import this other stuff here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 10, 2014 No. In fact, I'll go a many magnitudes higher than "amazing order"....The "Specific Complexity" is the overriding factor in the matter Can you cite Specific Complexity? When I try to look it up, everyting defaults to "Specified Complexity". thanks ============================================================================ Should be the same thing/concept. I think William Dembski produced some Lit on it...could be mistaken, however. I thought I explained this to you before, No? The last time you explained it, you told me it came from your head. If it's mimmicking Dembski, you should specify (no pun intended) "Specified Complexity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted March 10, 2014 ... Science is not about philosophy and logic anymore. We are turning off some of our brightest minds to science because in certain areas they are not allowed to believe what observation tells us. They should know there is the natural world that is observed by science, and the spiritual world that is faith. Kepler knew both worlds. "About the time that the Reformation was proclaiming Christ rather than the pope as the head of the Church, science was announcing that the sun rather than the earth was the center of our planetary system. A leader in this changing scientific perspective was the German scientist Johann Kepler. Kepler (1571-1630) was the first scientist to accept Copernicus' theories that the earth rotated about the sun, and he was an important forerunner of Isaac Newton in systematizing science. "A devout Lutheran, Kepler was studying theology and planning to become a minister when he was called to teach mathematics in Graz, Austria. Kepler realized he could glorify God through his mathematical and astronomical studies, and his scientific notes were often mixed with prayers and praise to his Lord. "Kepler believed that there was an art and orderliness in God's creation and that the more Christians recognized the greatness of creation, the deeper their worship would be. Didn't God himself encourage the heathen to look carefully at creation so that they might come to know God? God created man in His image, and He wants us to recognize and know His design for the universe: The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics. In his astronomical research, Kepler only wanted to, as he put it, "think God's thoughts after Him." "Kepler believed that there was a mathematical precision and orderliness in the universe; the scientist's duty was to discover what mathematical formula God had used ..."http://www.christianity.com/theology/creation/kepler-the-heavens-declare-gods-glory-11630018.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I'm not speaking for everyone, but I am not interested in having my threads derailed anymore by off topic things. I'm also not interested in you advertising your threads in mine so much. If you agree with what I said, and it seems like you do given your agreement to my questions, I have no idea why you'd import this other stuff here. ==================================================================== but I am not interested in having my threads derailed anymore by off topic things "Your" Threads?? I didn't know you owned them. This is a Forum, No? Also....every single thread that I ever started or witnessed "Strayed" from the OP.....this is quite self-evident. I have no idea why you'd import this other stuff here. "Other stuff"? Please be Specific and I will attempt to provide a rationale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts