Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

POSTING RESTRICTED

Posting in this topic has been restricted to the following users:

AronRa, Justice Frangipane.
Post new topic   Page 2 of 2
 [ 35 posts ] 
AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread
Author Message
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 497Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

Why do I have to repeat everything for you? Everything I say below was copied-and-pasted from things I've already posted earlier in this thread.

Justice Frangipane wrote:Quick comment on the existence of God argument before we go further.

God is defined by a variety of attributes including his miraculous nature.
God: (1) A magical anthropomorphic entity, typically immortal, and central to most religions, typically a primarily spiritual being who’s continued existence may be independent of whichever physical form(s) it may choose.

If I were to describe you as angry but at the moment you were happy would you not exist because the defining characteristic I chose to define you by was not present? Hardly!
Now you're being deliberately obtuse, another typical tactic of the creationist, trying not to understand.

If we would like to pretend that we as human beings CAN define what is possible and what is not possible that's fine, I think it's a noble pursuit but the simple fact is we can not prove the non existence of ANYTHING so while in scientific practice you may rule out the worth of investing in any number of rational thoughts by the CURRENT ability to make progress in validating those thoughts by currently available mechanisms that doesn't define the reality of the world we live in.
I define my terms and hold rigid to those definitions,
You do understand that you will still have to define what creation is,

It only ONLY quantifies how we can observe it, not IF we can observe it and more importantly it does nothing for the arguement of existence AT ALL.
Have you noticed that creationism has never contributed anything of any value to the sum of scientific understanding?

Saying that God can not exist because our ability to quantify the mechanism by whichever a miracle may occur is rationally insane.
Rationalism: A secular perspective that belief should be restricted only to that which is directly- supportable by logic or evidence, that while many things may be considered possible, nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated.

At the very least, I can show you that evolution is real, that it is an inescapable fact of population genetics, and that creationism is an unreasonable and irrational belief in a repugnant collection of ridiculous fables.

There is no need to exclude what was never implied in the first place. In science, there is only what is supported by evidence, and what is not supported, and whatever is not supported doesn't warrant serious consideration.

Imagine a person in the 1800's trying to explain how a phone worked or almost any of our modern electronics. It is if by MAGIC that these things are possible. Just because we don't understand the mechanism doesn't by any means mean that the process is less scientific. God, for all we know may be a great scientist who uses no unscientific means by which to accomplish the tasks that's he is said to have performed. While we call them supernatural it maybe that outside of our current realm of understanding that the possibility of various things does in fact exist naturally. If we knew the mechanism by which a "miracle" was performed it would cease to be a miracle in that very moment. So it appears that miracles are defined by a lack of understanding. So saying that a lack of understanding must exist for the property to exist does create a logical fallacy in your description of gods ability to exist. If we understood it, it would no long "be".
If events previously described as miraculous were found to be miraculous by natural means.... Would they still be miracles?
Magic / Miracle: The evocation of supernatural powers or entities to control or forecast natural events.

Supernatural: That which is assumed to be beyond nature and outside our reality, magical, miraculous, extraordinary, being independent of logic and inexplicable by science because it defies the laws of physics.

If God were found to be capable of miracles by processes previously thought to be in contradiction or suspension of natural law but found to be in accordance with a law that superceeded our current understanding of those laws would he then exist?
If there were any sound, sane, or logical reason to believe that a god existed, I would accept that. But if there were such a thing, there would also be some evidence of it, some reason to believe it -other than the willfully ignorant deliberate dishonesty, unsupported assertions, illogical assumptions, and irrational ravings of only the least credible of all people

All of this assumes that we have a FULL understanding of the laws of physics and that those laws are ALL ENCOMPASSING.
look back at your Bible. It's a story book with no confirmed prophesies, no discernible wisdom and no external support. It's absolutely wrong about absolutely everything it says that can be tested. So we have the evident facts of reality pitted against the irrelevant lies of mythology.

There is a very real possibility that the laws we see here are both temporary and local and not the key to all that is and has ever been.
if there is nothing whatsoever to imply that your assertion even could be correct, then you still haven't met the minimum criteria for consideration. Your postulation would still be unsupported and unrealistic,

You particular god is defined as existing outside this reality, which means that he does not exist in reality.
Your using the word "this" to mean the word "any". Let me rephrase.

Your particular God is defined as existing outside "this" reality, which means that he can exist in another reality. (As well as existing in both)
Obviously you misunderstood me again.
I never mix meanings.
you will show that there is no truth to Biblical creationism, and you will understand that it is only an assertion of magical fables with no accountability or value beyond that of poorly written archaic literature.

(3) In science, we cannot say that anything is possible until there is some precedent or parallel indicating that it is. Otherwise I could say that it is possible that monkeys *might* fly out of my ass. So until you produce some indication that your god is possible, plausible, and probable, it isn't.
Sure. We are talking formulaic process here not reality.
you have no truth at all on your side, nothing whatsoever that you can actually show to be true. While I can -and will- easily prove that the things I know are true, you will be unable to show that anything you believe in is even real.

Origin of matter. God is now plausible.
Notice that you have failed to provide any reason to believe that. You have shown no 'clear truth' such as you imagine -despite repeated challenges to do so!
Incredulity will not qualify as a counter-argument.
If you have no precedent or parallel or any other indication that it is even possible, then it isn't. If you have no evidence to show, then you have nothing for me to consider.
All the evidence everywhere contradicts your compilation of fables, and I mean on every level. Because it's not just that it's wrong scientifically and historically and ethically and morally; even the theology is irreconcilable nonsense.

trying to reason with you will be like trying to nail jello to the wall. Consequently this is also going to get absurdly long, because you can't answer simple questions honestly;

Quit ducking & dodging all my direct questions, and properly address my points and challenges.

This will be a mutual discussion. I will answer all your direct questions of course, but you don't get to ignore mine.

If you repeatedly dodge or ignore direct questions, then it is off.

Now since you're repeating yourself regarding my earlier challenge -still unanswered, allow me to repeat it too:

I asked you if you yet understood why Spontaneous Generation is not the same thing as Abiogenesis. Yet even after I provided the definitions for each, you still didn't get it. So I'm going to start using simpler words, and I would encourage you to use 'yes' or 'no' instead of inflated excuses.

1a. Spontaneous Generation is the idea that life contains a supernatural life-force called 'vitalism', and that once-living things like old meat, rotting vegetables and feces will miraculously generate insects and vermin. Do you accept that that is what the old hypothesis of spontaneous generation was?
1b. Do understand and accept that no scientist ever thought there was poop or garbage lying around before there was life on this planet? Because that would be required if we were talking about Spontaneous Generation.
1c. Do you understand and accept that Abiogenesis is the current hypothesis which holds that the formation of homeostatic cells and the achievement of the basic properties of life came about through a culmination of overlapping NATURAL sequential processes from (and related to) a prior matrix of organic chemicals.
1d. Do you now understand that 'organic' chemicals does NOT mean 'chemicals that were once alive?
1e. Do you accept that the science of cellular biology does not include the notion that cells possess an inate mystical vitalism?
1f. Do you admit that abiogenesis was never disproved, even though Spontaneous Generation was?

If you want a shortcut, just admit that abiogenesis is a completely different concept than Spontaneous Generation. It also might be good to note that Spontaneous Generation was disproved by methodological naturalism, which is the very thing that implies abiogenesis.

I also asked you whether you realize why changing allele frequencies in reproductive populations cannot account for the formation of life, chemical elements, stars or planets, or time & space, and you made some weasely excuse for this too. So unless you want to explain what population genetics and cell theory have to do with the formation of stars and so on, then I suggest you make an honest concession that 'evolution' (as it is defined by those who know, study, and teach it) is NOT what your criminally fraudulent charlatan sheeple shepherd said it was. If you learn anything from MISTER (not 'Doctor') Kent Hovind, inmate # 06452-017, it should be not to follow him.

2. Do you understand and accept that evolution deals only with biodiversity, and not the origin of...Life the Universe and Everything.

The first point to cover before we proceed any further is one that you're still arguing even though you have completely ignored the required challenge three times already.

In order to show whether creationism qualifies as a theory, you'll need to
3a. define what a supernatural creation is. Show me what you can honestly say you actually know about it. Show me how I can know it too.
3b. Explain the mechanism(s) behind it.
3c. What laws were postulated, and by whom?
3d. Show me where anything was ever demonstrably created. Failing that, show me where conjuration has ever been indicated by evidence and vindicated in peer review.
3e. Explain what hypothesis we could use to potentially falsify it. Give me a prediction: If creationism is true, then an experiment or expedition should reveal X but could not permit Y, something like that.

You could fail to answer one or two of these and still have a theory. The theory of evolution has an answer to all of these, and so does atomic theory, and cell theory, and a host of others. But the theory of gravity can't yet answer every one, because they haven't quite worked out the mechanism. Gravity is still a theory though, and a theory is the highest level of confidence science can bestow. It's just that the theory of gravity isn't as well-supported as evolution is.

However if you can't answer ANY of these, then maybe you should take the shortcut and simply admit that creationism does not qualify as a theory.

Don't think I'm going to let you off any of these points.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:22 am
Justice FrangipaneUser avatarPosts: 42Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:39 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

Aron,

Been busy, have a little time to reply now.

Please understand that the very beginning of this whole thing came from me asking if I could ask you questions. NOT the other way around. I have politely asked you to hold off on your questions until we are done. I have NOT completely ignored your repeated attempts to get me to answer your questions. I have each time (or almost every time) responded with a polite request to wait. You have posed probably 25 serious questions or accusations against my beliefs, or the science of what I believe. You have repeatedly tried to change the subject, or been obtuse with your answers as well. I understand that you want me to give a definitive answer, but if the question is wrong how am I supposed to do that without challenging the errors, or the errors in the logic? If I am to respond intelligently, than it can't be done as simply as you want it to be. I would think that you being intelligent would understand that. Or perhaps you don't want an intelligent response. Perhaps you are used to arguing with idiots who have no idea how to REALLY answer a question. Not just nod a dimly lit brain up and down.

I am finding you to be mix of teacher and bully. I do think that you have a legitimate desire to help other people learn. That part of you, I appreciate and that is the part I respect and admire. I do admire you, you are intelligent. However, you are frequently using humiliation tactics to attempt to destroy the faith a person has in their own intellect. That is based off of your ignorance. You may think that you are doing others a favor by attempting (and I'm sure with some, succeeding) the destruction of their pride and faith in their own belief. Your statements about there being nothing of truth in the whole Bible, that it is all nonsense, and that there is no historical validity to it, is absolute nonsense. You must be either wildly ignorant of the book (and you were fed what to believe about it) or you are downright lying to achieve a goal. If your "ends justify the means" means, you justify bold faced lying, I would ask you to leave your "scientist" badge on the way out of this conversation and not pick it up until you change that. I understand "showmanship" but it has no place in this type of forum.

I will happily defend the Bible when we get there. Please be patient. If you are looking for a reason to bail because you find yourself getting deeper into a trap, feel free to escape. But it is closing in on you. The web you weave can only support so many lies before it starts to fall into itself and everyone can see the game you've been playing. If you want to bail, bail. If you NEED me to answer your questions before I ask mine, bail. Do whatever you feel you need to do. If you can handle some more questions before you can get what you want then answer what follows. I hope that you stay and can "tough it out" for a little while longer, but I hope that you drop the act. When you treat me or others who have a different belief than yours with incredulity it shows close mindedness. I have to constantly fight the desire to be rude and dismissive as well. But it serves no intelligent purpose for science. I get it, it's frustrating talking to someone who just "doesn't get it" but sometimes there IS a real reason why, and sometimes there are real issues with the statements you make. (like your statement about why God can not exist because miracles aren't "possible")

Questions for you

1.
Do you know when the original dates for the geologic column were first posted?

1a.
Do you know what those dates were?

2.
What assumptions are used in radiometric dating?

2a.
How would you falsify the radiometric dating process?



Thank you Aron.


I do accept that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are different. I know that they are perceived differently as well. I'm not pretending that the definitions are not different. But its the same creature we are talking about. Life from non life.

Do you accept that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are similar in that they both share a common belief that - non living material can produce or turn into living material.

Do you accept that the concept of - life from non life - is the primary core concept of the theory of spontaneous generation?

Do you accept that the concept of - life from non life - is the primary core concept of the theory of abiogenesis?

Do you accept that the core concept is what was challenged by Pasteur and Redi?
"Don't confuse the facts with the interpretation of the facts. They are in fact, not the same thing." - Anonymous
Thu Feb 27, 2014 6:40 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 497Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

Before this thread was even conceived, we established that this conversation would be mutual, and if you cared about truth at all, you would have no problem with that. Every one of the questions you have asked me, I have already answered earlier in this thread. I will repeat those answers, and paraphrase them for clarity, once you answer my questions to you -which you HAVE ignored, because you're the one feeling trapped. Quit trying to project your own faults onto me.

Once again, I repeat stop trying to bluff me. It is not possible for someone like you to even intimidate me. You're unarmed and we both know that. So quit thrashing your tail and puffing up your feathers pretending to be something you're not.

You've already admitted there is some truth to evolution, but we both already know there is no truth to your own position, so you know where this is going. That's why you're trying to pretend that you have a trap for me. You don't. Even if you did, it wouldn't work on me. If you had the truth, I would want you to correct me because I care about truth. You don't, so you don't want me to correct you; you want to defend your delusion, and that is all that it is.

The greatest challenge in fact the ONLY challenge in trying to reason with creationists is getting them to answer questions honestly, because they will not be accountable. That's why you're ducking and dodging and playing these games. There is no truth in your position and you already know that, but you're unwilling to admit it, and you know you'll be forced to if you were to comport yourself like a reasonable person. Creationism cannot be defended honestly, and you already know that too.

I eagerly await your answer to each of the questions below, and I will not respond to anything else you post until then.


1a. Spontaneous Generation is the idea that life contains a supernatural life-force called 'vitalism', and that once-living things like old meat, rotting vegetables and feces will miraculously generate insects and vermin. Do you accept that that is what the old hypothesis of spontaneous generation was?
1b. Do understand and accept that no scientist ever thought there was poop or garbage lying around before there was life on this planet? Because that would be required if we were talking about Spontaneous Generation.
1c. Do you understand and accept that Abiogenesis is the current hypothesis which holds that the formation of homeostatic cells and the achievement of the basic properties of life came about through a culmination of overlapping NATURAL sequential processes from (and related to) a prior matrix of organic chemicals.
1d. Do you now understand that 'organic' chemicals does NOT mean 'chemicals that were once alive?
1e. Do you accept that the science of cellular biology does not include the notion that cells possess an inate mystical vitalism?
1f. Do you admit that abiogenesis was never disproved, even though Spontaneous Generation was?

If you want a shortcut, just admit that abiogenesis is a completely different concept than Spontaneous Generation. It also might be good to note that Spontaneous Generation was disproved by methodological naturalism, which is the very thing that implies abiogenesis.

I also asked you whether you realize why changing allele frequencies in reproductive populations cannot account for the formation of life, chemical elements, stars or planets, or time & space, and you made some weasely excuse for this too. So unless you want to explain what population genetics and cell theory have to do with the formation of stars and so on, then I suggest you make an honest concession that 'evolution' (as it is defined by those who know, study, and teach it) is NOT what your criminally fraudulent charlatan sheeple shepherd said it was. If you learn anything from MISTER (not 'Doctor') Kent Hovind, inmate # 06452-017, it should be not to follow him.

2. Do you understand and accept that evolution deals only with biodiversity, and not the origin of...Life the Universe and Everything.

The first point to cover before we proceed any further is one that you're still arguing even though you have completely ignored the required challenge three times already.

In order to show whether creationism qualifies as a theory, you'll need to
3a. define what a supernatural creation is. Show me what you can honestly say you actually know about it. Show me how I can know it too.
3b. Explain the mechanism(s) behind it.
3c. What laws were postulated, and by whom?
3d. Show me where anything was ever demonstrably created. Failing that, show me where conjuration has ever been indicated by evidence and vindicated in peer review.
3e. Explain what hypothesis we could use to potentially falsify it. Give me a prediction: If creationism is true, then an experiment or expedition should reveal X but could not permit Y, something like that.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:29 pm
Justice FrangipaneUser avatarPosts: 42Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:39 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

Aron,

I'm not saying I'm weaving a trap for you. I'm saying the lies your saying are. Not me doing it. I wouldn't have a problem with the way you conducted yourself if IF you were more rational in your statements.

So much of what you say is intentionally wrong. Just rephrase from NOTHING to almost nothing (or a lot) and you could be right a lot more often.

If we are at a place where you won't continue because you think I'm pulling a power play, then I will apologize. I don't mean to come across like I'm telling you what to do. I thought it was very clear from where we started on facebook what was the expected format. You offered to answer some questions, I offered to ask them. We quickly switched roles and I'm only suggesting we go back to the original format. Like I said, I am not ignoring your requests for answers. I'm saying lets do things orderly. I'm not going anywhere. So I think its best to describe one thing then the other.

If you would like I can answer your concession questions. I don't mind, but I don't want to be sent endlessly down a road defending my side, YET. It muddies the organization of the forum. I can wait. Not a power play, just an attempt to keep things organized.

I don't have anything to hide. I am aware that there I things I don't know and things that I believe, and things that are scientific theories, that I believe, but can't know, and there are more things that I CAN know. I am more than happy to have that conversation. But I am asking that we finish our first conversation first. I don't think that is an unreasonable request.

Feel free to tell me why you can or can't continue. I am looking forward to you answering my last message. Like I said I can answer the concession questions. But would like to stay on topic.

1a. Spontaneous Generation is the idea that life contains a supernatural life-force called 'vitalism', and that once-living things like old meat, rotting vegetables and feces will miraculously generate insects and vermin. Do you accept that that is what the old hypothesis of spontaneous generation was?


Yes, agreed

1b. Do understand and accept that no scientist ever thought there was poop or garbage lying around before there was life on this planet? Because that would be required if we were talking about Spontaneous Generation.


Yes, agreed

1c. Do you understand and accept that Abiogenesis is the current hypothesis which holds that the formation of homeostatic cells and the achievement of the basic properties of life came about through a culmination of overlapping NATURAL sequential processes from (and related to) a prior matrix of organic chemicals.


Yes, I understand that.

1d. Do you now understand that 'organic' chemicals does NOT mean 'chemicals that were once alive?


Yes, that is why I phrased what I said the way I did.

1e. Do you accept that the science of cellular biology does not include the notion that cells possess an inate mystical vitalism?


Not completely, I think the concept still exists in an extracted, trimmed, modified sense... but basically, I agree.

1f. Do you admit that abiogenesis was never disproved, even though Spontaneous Generation was?


I still think that when you really get down to it, this is one of our bigger debate topics. I still maintain that at the core level with all the fat trimmed off we are looking at the same thing with a different skin on it. We may need to agree to disagree here. I know what your saying, but I still think they are VERY connected ideas that while the term may be different and have differences at the fringes the core remains the same.

I hope answering these question helps. I am aware that I am purposely not answering the other questions. Again, I am requesting we finish some more of my questions. I would again ask to hold off for the sake of clarity that we finish one thing at a time. I would like to get through my age of the earth and radiometric dating questions first. I am happy after that topic has been dealt with for us to move to creation theory and your questions. As I mentioned, I am looking forward to answering those questions.
"Don't confuse the facts with the interpretation of the facts. They are in fact, not the same thing." - Anonymous
Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:21 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 497Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

Justice Frangipane wrote:Aron,

I'm not saying I'm weaving a trap for you. I'm saying the lies your saying are. Not me doing it. I wouldn't have a problem with the way you conducted yourself if IF you were more rational in your statements.
Nothing I said was wrong -intentionally or unintentionally. Nothing you said was right -even accidentally. I'm not the one who is lying; you are, and your dishonesty is increasingly obvious the more excuses you make. I answered all your questions honestly and accurately, and you will not do the same for me.

If you would like I can answer your concession questions. I don't mind, but I don't want to be sent endlessly down a road defending my side, YET. It muddies the organization of the forum. I can wait. Not a power play, just an attempt to keep things organized.
I'll keep it organized. We'll do this quid pro quo.

I don't have anything to hide. I am aware that there I things I don't know and things that I believe, and things that are scientific theories, that I believe, but can't know, and there are more things that I CAN know. I am more than happy to have that conversation. But I am asking that we finish our first conversation first. I don't think that is an unreasonable request.
It is an unreasonable request. I am asking reasonable questions. There is no justifiable reason for you to ignore them. Nor is there any reason for you try to twist or conflate them -unless your entire position depends on misrepresentation, which it clearly does.

Feel free to tell me why you can or can't continue. I am looking forward to you answering my last message. Like I said I can answer the concession questions. But would like to stay on topic.
I'm always on-topic. That's why I won't let you ignore my questions. Once you get back on track, and pick up your end like I've been doing, then we'll both continue mutual communication as if we were both rational people.



1a. Spontaneous Generation is the idea that life contains a supernatural life-force called 'vitalism', and that once-living things like old meat, rotting vegetables and feces will miraculously generate insects and vermin. Do you accept that that is what the old hypothesis of spontaneous generation was?
1b. Do understand and accept that no scientist ever thought there was poop or garbage lying around before there was life on this planet? Because that would be required if we were talking about Spontaneous Generation.
1c. Do you understand and accept that Abiogenesis is the current hypothesis which holds that the formation of homeostatic cells and the achievement of the basic properties of life came about through a culmination of overlapping NATURAL sequential processes from (and related to) a prior matrix of organic chemicals.
1d. Do you now understand that 'organic' chemicals does NOT mean 'chemicals that were once alive?
1e. Do you accept that the science of cellular biology does not include the notion that cells possess an inate mystical vitalism?
1f. Do you admit that abiogenesis was never disproved, even though Spontaneous Generation was?

If you want a shortcut, just admit that abiogenesis is a completely different concept than Spontaneous Generation. It also might be good to note that Spontaneous Generation was disproved by methodological naturalism, which is the very thing that implies abiogenesis.

I also asked you whether you realize why changing allele frequencies in reproductive populations cannot account for the formation of life, chemical elements, stars or planets, or time & space, and you made some weasely excuse for this too. So unless you want to explain what population genetics and cell theory have to do with the formation of stars and so on, then I suggest you make an honest concession that 'evolution' (as it is defined by those who know, study, and teach it) is NOT what your criminally fraudulent charlatan sheeple shepherd said it was. If you learn anything from MISTER (not 'Doctor') Kent Hovind, inmate # 06452-017, it should be not to follow him.

2. Do you understand and accept that evolution deals only with biodiversity, and not the origin of...Life the Universe and Everything.

The first point to cover before we proceed any further is one that you're still arguing even though you have completely ignored the required challenge three times already.

In order to show whether creationism qualifies as a theory, you'll need to
3a. define what a supernatural creation is. Show me what you can honestly say you actually know about it. Show me how I can know it too.
3b. Explain the mechanism(s) behind it.
3c. What laws were postulated, and by whom?
3d. Show me where anything was ever demonstrably created. Failing that, show me where conjuration has ever been indicated by evidence and vindicated in peer review.
3e. Explain what hypothesis we could use to potentially falsify it. Give me a prediction: If creationism is true, then an experiment or expedition should reveal X but could not permit Y, something like that.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:44 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 497Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

I don't know how I didn't notice that you had already answered these. I should know better than to post from the office where I am otherwise constantly interrupted and distracted.

1e. Do you accept that the science of cellular biology does not include the notion that cells possess an inate mystical vitalism?
Not completely, I think the concept still exists in an extracted, trimmed, modified sense... but basically, I agree.
If you want to push this issue, you'll need citations to the peer-reviewed literature. I assure you, there's no hint of vitalism in modern cell biology.

1f. Do you admit that abiogenesis was never disproved, even though Spontaneous Generation was?
I still think that when you really get down to it, this is one of our bigger debate topics. I still maintain that at the core level with all the fat trimmed off we are looking at the same thing with a different skin on it. We may need to agree to disagree here. I know what your saying, but I still think they are VERY connected ideas that while the term may be different and have differences at the fringes the core remains the same.
We're not going to agree to disagree. We're all going to agree that you're wrong.

In Spontaneous Generation, the idea that now-dead materials that were once-living, (like old meat, rotting vegetables, feces, etc.) still retained some vaporous essence of vitalism, and that this would generate new (and always vile) life-forms to emerge out of deceased materials within mere days or weeks at most. Were this hypothesis correct, with new life being spawned from a seemingly spiritous component of now-dead matter, it should have worked even in sealed containers. But of course, the reason that maggots, mice, and mold appear was because they were spawned from parent organisms that were deposited on the garbage when no one was looking. Obviously that couldn't happen in sealed containers. That's how Spontaneous Generation was disproved.

There is no similarity between that and abiogenesis, which is a concordant string of natural processes. Abiogenesis contends that life is merely chemistry, with no evident vitalism, and that it is possible for the most basic of living functions to be incrementally derived out of chemicals that were never alive. It would not allow the spawn of multicellular animals or even eukaryotic cells, only the most basal functions of homestasis. Abiogenesis has passed the tests of sealed containers, showing how organic chemicals form naturally even in anaerobic conditions from fundamental monomers to polymers all the way up to riboneucleotides -that we've seen so far.

So do you accept that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not in any sense "the same thing with a different skin"? Because they're opposite in nearly every respect. How could they be any more different than they already are?

I hope answering these question helps.
You're not done with this one.

1f. Do you admit that abiogenesis was never disproved, even though Spontaneous Generation was?
Because if not, then you're going to have to explain who performed what experiment to disprove abiogenesis, and how they did it. We both already know that you can't do that because it didn't happen. So you may as well admit it now, so that we can move on.

I am aware that I am purposely not answering the other questions.
There is no excuse for avoiding any of the questions I've asked so far.

Again, I am requesting we finish some more of my questions. I would again ask to hold off for the sake of clarity that we finish one thing at a time.
We will do this quid pro quo. This is not a game of semantics. This is an analysis of reality.

I would like to get through my age of the earth and radiometric dating questions first. I am happy after that topic has been dealt with for us to move to creation theory and your questions.
There is no such thing as 'creation theory', and you know it. My other questions prove that, and that's why you're avoiding them. I'm not going to let you get away with that.

But since I have already answered all of those questions, I will repeat and explain the answers to you.

Questions for you

1.
Do you know when the original dates for the geologic column were first posted?
As I said on February 24th, it happened over a century ago, when Lord Kelvin used thermodynamics set an age range for the earth as between 20 million and 400 million years old. As I said, he didn't know that the earth generates its own heat through radiation. Once he realized that, he pushed his estimate back by orders of magnitude, according to data provided from the first rocks to be radiometrically tested in 1907.

1a.
Do you know what those dates were?
The oldest of the first rocks tested by Bertram Boltwood dated between 400 million and 2,2 billion years old. Andrew Snelling of Answers In Genesis also personally dated rock formations in the billions of years, while at the same time writing creationist articles on flood geology in which no methods could be applied to get the dates he wanted.

2.
What assumptions are used in radiometric dating?
Assumptions? Let's see. How about the assumption that data has meaning, and that there's not a god out there screwing up absolutely all the test results just to make us think that the world is billions of years old?

Science challenges all assumptions and tests them. As I told you before, you have to propose testable hypotheses, so that -if the hypothesis is correct, an expedition or experiment should reveal X but would not permit Y. In this case, the challenge was whether other dating methods would be concordant. There are occasional anomalies in certain chemical environments, but these are predictable now, and alternate dating methods account for them, especially when multiple additional methods are applied, so that every method ever tried proves that the earth is much MUCH older than tens of thousands of years.

2a.
How would you falsify the radiometric dating process?
At this point, that's no longer possible. It would have required that various dating methods be consistently inconsistent and discordant. But of course that's not what happened. Absolute dates provided by Uranium-lead, Samarium-neodymium, Potassium-argon, Rubidium-strontium, Uranium-thorium, and Radiocarbon are concordant with Fission track, Chlorine-36, Thermoluminescence, varves, ice cores, dendrochronology, and Mitochondrial mutation rates in addition to relativity and the speed of light. Consequently we now know for absolutely certain that the earth is on the order of billions of years old. There is no question about that anymore.

As I mentioned, I am looking forward to answering those questions.
I don't believe you, but here's your opportunity. Make sure you take it. Provide your answers to these questions along with your next questions if you like, but make sure to answer these in your next post.

I also asked you whether you realize why changing allele frequencies in reproductive populations cannot account for the formation of life, chemical elements, stars or planets, or time & space, and you made some weasely excuse for this too. So unless you want to explain what population genetics and cell theory have to do with the formation of stars and so on, then I suggest you make an honest concession that 'evolution' (as it is defined by those who know, study, and teach it) is NOT what your criminally fraudulent charlatan sheeple shepherd said it was. If you learn anything from MISTER (not 'Doctor') Kent Hovind, inmate # 06452-017, it should be not to follow him.

2. Do you understand and accept that evolution deals only with biodiversity, and not the origin of...Life the Universe and Everything.

The first point to cover before we proceed any further is one that you're still arguing even though you have completely ignored the required challenge several times already.

In order to show whether creationism qualifies as a theory, you'll need to
3a. define what a supernatural creation is. Show me what you can honestly say you actually know about it. Show me how I can know it too.
3b. Explain the mechanism(s) behind it.
3c. What laws were postulated, and by whom?
3d. Show me where anything was ever demonstrably created. Failing that, show me where conjuration has ever been indicated by evidence and vindicated in peer review.
3e. Explain what hypothesis we could use to potentially falsify it. Give me a prediction: If creationism is true, then an experiment or expedition should reveal X but could not permit Y, something like that.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:36 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 497Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

Answering my questions to you will be much easier than it looks. You could take a shortcut and simply admit that (a) abiogenesis was never disproved, and (b) abiogenesis is not the same as Spontaneous Generation. (c) Admit that since the mechanisms of evolution are limited to those of population genetics, then evolution relates to the origin of species of course, but obviously doesn't relate at all to the origin of life, chemical elements, stars, or the universe itself. (d) Admit that creationism does not qualify as a scientific theory.

We all know -even you already know- that you're going to have to concede each of these points. So you may as well do that now, that we may proceed.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:14 pm
Justice FrangipaneUser avatarPosts: 42Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:39 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

It will take me some time to write everything out and source all the information. I hope to have a good response to you by monday.

The answers you gave for 2 and 2a are in my opinion not real answers. They are in my opinion a dodge. I know the answers to the questions I'm asking. I want to see if your willing to admit the limitations of the processes inside radiometric dating.

Let me rephrase so you can answer it differently.

1.
Is the process of radiometric dating assumption free?

2.
What were the original/early ways in which radiometric dating would have been falsified?
"Don't confuse the facts with the interpretation of the facts. They are in fact, not the same thing." - Anonymous
Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:01 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 497Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

Justice Frangipane wrote:It will take me some time to write everything out and source all the information. I hope to have a good response to you by monday.
In this case, the only good response you could have would be to (a) admit that abiogenesis was never disproved, and (b) admit that abiogenesis is not the same as Spontaneous Generation. (c) Admit that since the mechanisms of evolution are limited to those of population genetics, then evolution relates to the origin of species of course, but obviously doesn't relate at all to the origin of life, chemical elements, stars, or the universe itself. (d) Admit that creationism does not qualify as a scientific theory. Regardless how badly these truths may undermine your already indefensible position, you're going to have to concede each of these points. Ultimately you have no other option.

The answers you gave for 2 and 2a are in my opinion not real answers. They are in my opinion a dodge.
No, you're the one doing all the dodging. Stop trying to project your own faults onto me.

I know the answers to the questions I'm asking.
Your performance to this point indicates otherwise.

I want to see if your willing to admit the limitations of the processes inside radiometric dating.
I certainly am, much more than you are willing to admit the limitations of your own approach, which is made up entirely of baseless fallacious erroneous assumptions which have no truth in them, and are invariably contradicted by all available data.

Let me rephrase so you can answer it differently.

1.
Is the process of radiometric dating assumption free?
I don't know what assumptions you could possibly be talking about. One thing I frequently encounter when arguing with apologists is that their position is so unrealistic that the only way they could be right is if reality itself is wrong. So they argue that it might be. They say that I can't know anything for certain and that I must 'assume' even whether existence exists. But my counter-argument is that reality is real by definition, and by application as well. So I will not change my answer; because shoving sophistry aside, I remind you what I said before: Scientific methodology challenges all assumptions. It does it by requiring evidence as a prerequisite to positive claims. It does it by requiring that all estimates be tested by potentially falsifiable hypotheses, and I does it by requiring that all conclusions be critically examined in peer review. It is the antithesis of faith in that the scientific method eliminates, or at least minimizes 'assumptions' pretty well. It does the same for biases too.

2.
What were the original/early ways in which radiometric dating would have been falsified?
I don't think you're reading my posts very carefully, because I have to repeat myself a lot. I told you yesterday, to falsify radiometric dating, back when that could still be done, It would have required that various dating methods be consistently inconsistent and discordant. But of course that's not what happened. Myriad different methods combine all of which point to the same answer. That's one reason why they're called 'absolute' dates even though they're given within a range. Your alternative is based only on the speculation of a misinformed medieval mad man interpreting falsified fables, and has never been supported by any evidence of any sort from anywhere.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:25 pm
Justice FrangipaneUser avatarPosts: 42Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:39 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

1.
Is the process of radiometric dating assumption free?

I don't know what assumptions you could possibly be talking about. One thing I frequently encounter when arguing with apologists is that their position is so unrealistic that the only way they could be right is if reality itself is wrong. So they argue that it might be. They say that I can't know anything for certain and that I must 'assume' even whether existence exists. But my counter-argument is that reality is real by definition, and by application as well. So I will not change my answer; because shoving sophistry aside, I remind you what I said before: Scientific methodology challenges all assumptions. It does it by requiring evidence as a prerequisite to positive claims. It does it by requiring that all estimates be tested by potentially falsifiable hypotheses, and I does it by requiring that all conclusions be critically examined in peer review. It is the antithesis of faith in that the scientific method eliminates, or at least minimizes 'assumptions' pretty well. It does the same for biases too.


This is a very important question that deserves a very thorough answer. Not a rushed or truncated answer. Here are the assumptions used in radiometric dating.

1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.

Let's deal with each of these individually.
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
Less than .0000000230769231% of K-Ar decay. That is roughly how much we have seen of the decay and we assume that the decay is the same for the rest of the .999999976%. With "parent" isotopes changing to "daughter" isotopes randomly and only the aggregate total being used to assume decay rates this is very subject to scrutiny.

There are many factors present that could change DRAMATICALLY the age of fossils we date currently. If the atmosphere filtered out/blocked radiation more effectively so that only 25% came into our atmosphere the earths starting radiation levels would be much smaller by what would translate into BILLIONS of years younger. If we are measuring based off of today and assuming that the earth has ALWAYS allowed the same amount of radiation in we are deep into believing that to be true, but we have left science at that point.
"The present is the key to the past" is the mantra used to decide that this is a reasonable assumption. Is that statement itself scientific? No, it's a belief statement. I'm not against belief statements, but they need to be viewed as such.

The Bible says there was a layer of water surrounding the earth, be that ice, or water I don't know. But water would block a large amount of radiation from entering the atmosphere. - Lead is quite ineffective for blocking neutron radiation, as neutrons are uncharged and can simply pass through dense materials. Materials composed of low atomic number elements are preferable for stopping this type of radiation because they have a higher probability of forming cross-sections that will interact with the neutrons. Hydrogen and hydrogen-based materials are well-suited for this task. Compounds with a high concentration of hydrogen atoms, such as water, form efficient neutron barriers in addition to being relatively inexpensive shielding substances. - http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/custo ... -materials

If there was water above the atmosphere it would block radiation.
-The best materials to shield against beta particles have lots of hydrogen atoms in them. Hydrogen atoms are light, and so absorb the particles without giving off x-rays. Plain old water works very well. In fact, 4 inches (10 centimeters) of water will block almost all background beta particles.- http://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html (the article goes on to say water would be an impractical choice for spacecraft radiation shielding, for what would presumably be due to weight? not sure)

This article (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_metal_is ... ion_shield) basically says a vest of 1.6 inches of water (41.5mm) would block as much as a led vest of .12mm. This amount of water (and lead) would half the radiation coming in (this is all in relation to x-ray and gamma rays used in doctors offices but principle is the same). A lead vest of approximately 1mm would block 99% of the incoming radiation. A "vest" of water less than a foot and a half thick would block 99% of incoming radiation as well.

If the Bible is true and there was water above the atmosphere. It would filter radiation. Lower radiation levels going into the atmosphere would drastically change the age results we see today.

I predict based of the teaching of the Bible that there was water above the atmosphere that we would find radiation levels to be wildly lower then what our current system (the present) would indicate.

I predict that this would cause radiometric dating to give results that look like millions and billions of years but are wrong because the assumptions used are incorrect.

2)The original amount of both mother and daughter elements are known.
1. AT BEST this is a guess that scientists make based off a BELIEF that the present is the key to the past. This is not based off of scientific research during that time. It's based off scientific research now and then we ASSUME that it was exactly the same back then.

With water above the atmosphere, radiation entering the atmosphere could easily be reduced to less than 1% of what it is today. Believing something has 100 of something when it actually only has 1 of that something makes for very VERY different data especially when dealing with radioactive elements.



3)The sample has remained in a closed system.
If the Bible is true and the whole earth was covered in water at some point then almost everything would be subject to radioactive leaching.
http://www.egr.msu.edu/tosc/alpena/fact ... nate.shtml
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/copper.html
Even if the Bible account is not true, we are faced with the reality that while decay MAY stay constant the radioactive elements "migrate" out of the original object leaving it with the appearance of a MUCH older age when exposed to water. Water is the same stuff that covers more then 70% of the planet. Its the same stuff that the Bible says covered the whole planet.
One of the more current crisis is radioactive water in Japan. http://www.wunderground.com/news/fukush ... a-20130823
How does that water become radioactive one might ask? It leaches the radioactive elements out of other sources.
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.-


2.
What were the original/early ways in which radiometric dating would have been falsified?

I don't think you're reading my posts very carefully, because I have to repeat myself a lot. I told you yesterday, to falsify radiometric dating, back when that could still be done, It would have required that various dating methods be consistently inconsistent and discordant. But of course that's not what happened. Myriad different methods combine all of which point to the same answer. That's one reason why they're called 'absolute' dates even though they're given within a range. Your alternative is based only on the speculation of a misinformed medieval mad man interpreting falsified fables, and has never been supported by any evidence of any sort from anywhere.

It should be noted that just because an answer is given it doesn't mean that the said answer;
1. answers the question asked.
2. is an adequate answer,
3. that the answer given is factual, accurate or logical.

You may want to consider that when you state over and over that I keep asking you the same questions. =)
"Don't confuse the facts with the interpretation of the facts. They are in fact, not the same thing." - Anonymous
Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:23 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 497Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

Justice Frangipane wrote:1.
Is the process of radiometric dating assumption free?
This is a very important question that deserves a very thorough answer. Not a rushed or truncated answer.
And yet this was your response?! If this is you can do, why do you keep trying?

When the topic goes over my head, or I just want to make sure whether I'm right, I turn to someone who knows more than I do in that field. I have a few strengths in various areas of this discussion, but nuclear chemistry isn't one of them. Fortunately, I know a several scientists in various fields. One readily available is a professional geologist, whom I tapped for the most appropriate answers to your questions.

Justice Frangipane wrote:Here are the assumptions used in radiometric dating.

Let's deal with each of these individually.
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
WildwoodClaire1 wrote:On what basis could one assume they have not? What plausible process can the writer propose that would account for a massive increase in rates of radioactive decay within the past few thousand years?
Less than .0000000230769231% of K-Ar decay. That is roughly how much we have seen of the decay and we assume that the decay is the same for the rest of the .999999976%. With "parent" isotopes changing to "daughter" isotopes randomly and only the aggregate total being used to assume decay rates this is very subject to scrutiny.

There are many factors present that could change DRAMATICALLY the age of fossils we date currently. If the atmosphere filtered out/blocked radiation more effectively so that only 25% came into our atmosphere the earths starting radiation levels would be much smaller by what would translate into BILLIONS of years younger. If we are measuring based off of today and assuming that the earth has ALWAYS allowed the same amount of radiation in we are deep into believing that to be true, but we have left science at that point.
And, if the Earth is only a few thousand years old, but radiometric dating indicates rocks in the billions of years, then one would have to assume that rates of decay in the recent past were many magnitudes higher than today and that would imply that sufficient energy had been released by all of those unstable isotopes assumed to be billions of years old to melt the entire planet.

"The present is the key to the past" is the mantra used to decide that this is a reasonable assumption. Is that statement itself scientific? No, it's a belief statement. I'm not against belief statements, but they need to be viewed as such.
You can base your beliefs on evidence, consistently-quantifiable and verifiable evidence producing reliably predictable results -and improving understanding, which is the purpose of science, or you can base your beliefs on faith -wherein you assume whatever you want to imagine, (no matter how absurd that might be) and refuse to know any better.

The Bible says there was a layer of water surrounding the earth, be that ice, or water I don't know. But water would block a large amount of radiation from entering the atmosphere. - Lead is quite ineffective for blocking neutron radiation, as neutrons are uncharged and can simply pass through dense materials. Materials composed of low atomic number elements are preferable for stopping this type of radiation because they have a higher probability of forming cross-sections that will interact with the neutrons. Hydrogen and hydrogen-based materials are well-suited for this task. Compounds with a high concentration of hydrogen atoms, such as water, form efficient neutron barriers in addition to being relatively inexpensive shielding substances. - http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/custo ... -materials

If there was water above the atmosphere it would block radiation.
-The best materials to shield against beta particles have lots of hydrogen atoms in them. Hydrogen atoms are light, and so absorb the particles without giving off x-rays. Plain old water works very well. In fact, 4 inches (10 centimeters) of water will block almost all background beta particles.- http://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html (the article goes on to say water would be an impractical choice for spacecraft radiation shielding, for what would presumably be due to weight? not sure)

This article (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_metal_is ... ion_shield) basically says a vest of 1.6 inches of water (41.5mm) would block as much as a led vest of .12mm. This amount of water (and lead) would half the radiation coming in (this is all in relation to x-ray and gamma rays used in doctors offices but principle is the same). A lead vest of approximately 1mm would block 99% of the incoming radiation. A "vest" of water less than a foot and a half thick would block 99% of incoming radiation as well.

If the Bible is true and there was water above the atmosphere. It would filter radiation. Lower radiation levels going into the atmosphere would drastically change the age results we see today.

I predict based of the teaching of the Bible that there was water above the atmosphere that we would find radiation levels to be wildly lower then what our current system (the present) would indicate.

I predict that this would cause radiometric dating to give results that look like millions and billions of years but are wrong because the assumptions used are incorrect.
WildwoodClaire1 wrote:The amount of radiation entering the atmosphere is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the decay rates of elements. The assertion is a clear indication that the writer has no idea what radioactive decay is or how it functions.
I would add that you have completely ignored the fact that absolute dates provided by Uranium-lead, Samarium-neodymium, Potassium-argon, Rubidium-strontium, Uranium-thorium, and Radiocarbon are concordant with Fission track, Chlorine-36, Thermoluminescence, varves, ice cores, dendrochronology, and Mitochondrial mutation rates in addition to relativity and the speed of light. Consequently we now know for absolutely certain that the earth is on the order of billions of years old. There is no question about that anymore. There are occasional anomalies in certain chemical environments, but these are predictable now, and alternate dating methods account for them, especially when multiple additional methods are applied, so that every method ever tried proves that the earth is much MUCH older than tens of thousands of years.

2)The original amount of both mother and daughter elements are known.
1. AT BEST this is a guess that scientists make based off a BELIEF that the present is the key to the past. This is not based off of scientific research during that time. It's based off scientific research now and then we ASSUME that it was exactly the same back then.

With water above the atmosphere, radiation entering the atmosphere could easily be reduced to less than 1% of what it is today. Believing something has 100 of something when it actually only has 1 of that something makes for very VERY different data especially when dealing with radioactive elements.
I'm not an expert on radiometric dating and will need to refresh my memory on this point. However, I do know that with Uranium-Lead dating of Zircon crystals, the ratio of Uranium to Lead at the time of crystal formation can be known with certainty and the atomic lattice making up the crystal preclude addition of Uranium or Lead into the crystal structure. What's more, as the crystal forms, Lead is strongly rejected and cannot be part of the original crystal lattice. Therefore, any lead found in the crystal HAS to be the result of decay of Uranium.

I needed to check something before more fully responding to the point about needing to know the amount of parent and daughter elements present in a rock at formation. That isn't true when one utilizes the Isochron method.

See my video about radiometric dating here:


And the following is from the TalkOrigins archive:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

"Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known. In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples.

Plotting P/D2 on the x axis and D/D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line that is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D/D2 is not initially the same in all samples, the data points tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line."
Once again we see how the apologist argues that reality itself could be wrong before he will admit that HE might be wrong. "How do you know the laws of physics won't change five seconds from now?" "How do you know you weren't created last Thursday with all your thoughts and memories and apparent age pre-created?"

3)The sample has remained in a closed system.
If the Bible is true and the whole earth was covered in water at some point then almost everything would be subject to radioactive leaching.
See my previous comment regarding the dating of Zircon crystals. The crystal structure of a mineral is not subject to the leaching invoked by the writer. What's more, many types of igneous rocks are not porous and show no signs of the hypothesized "leaching," so it is reasonable to assume that, they are more or less closed systems (depending on the type of rock we're talking about).

http://www.egr.msu.edu/tosc/alpena/fact ... nate.shtml
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/copper.html
Even if the Bible account is not true, we are faced with the reality that while decay MAY stay constant the radioactive elements "migrate" out of the original object leaving it with the appearance of a MUCH older age when exposed to water. Water is the same stuff that covers more then 70% of the planet. Its the same stuff that the Bible says covered the whole planet.
One of the more current crisis is radioactive water in Japan. http://www.wunderground.com/news/fukush ... a-20130823
How does that water become radioactive one might ask? It leaches the radioactive elements out of other sources.
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.-
I should add that it is a matter of absolute scientific certainty that there was never any global flood. Once your mind begins to awaken, the flood is one of the first things to be discarded.

How meteorology disproves the Noahician flood
How Geology disproves the Noahician flood
How zoology disproves the Noahician flood
How archaeology disproves the Noahician flood
How mythology disproves the Noahician flood

At one point, I toyed with creating a video series with each of the titles above, and I'm sorry that I didn't. I just didn't believe there could be that many people who still [pretend to] buy that wholly ridiculous fable.

The Tower of Babel and the Exodus have both also been disproved in similar fashion, and so has the creation story with the talking snake and the magic applie or mushroom, or whatever symbol that was supposed to be.

FYI, there was a local flood centered on the Iraqi city of Shurippak at the end of the Jemdat-Nasr period about 2900 BCE. The oldest and previously polytheist mythos of the area give many concordant details with the version of the fable that finally made it into the Bible by the 5th century BCE. However the pagan predecessors were often of Semitic origin, being written by the very grandfathers of the Biblical authors. The original character was known by various sources as Ziusudra, Utna-pishtim, and Atrahasis, but the details in the polytheist accounts include the barge with the menagerie floating on a devastating storm surge 15 cubits in depth for about a week, before releasing and raven and so on. We know what really happened, and we know what really didn't happen. There was never a global flood, period.

Outside of the Iraqi flood plain, in Greece, China, North America, Australia and so on, they have flood myths that are completely different with of your necessary details intact. Survivors on hill-tops, a naga-goddess fixing a hole in the sky, the last man and woman surviving inside a floating sea shell, etc. But in ancient Urok, the stories are all eerily similar because they're all talking about the same event, YOUR event, but on a much more modest scale.

2.
What were the original/early ways in which radiometric dating would have been falsified?

I don't think you're reading my posts very carefully, because I have to repeat myself a lot. I told you yesterday, to falsify radiometric dating, back when that could still be done, It would have required that various dating methods be consistently inconsistent and discordant. But of course that's not what happened. Myriad different methods combine all of which point to the same answer. That's one reason why they're called 'absolute' dates even though they're given within a range. Your alternative is based only on the speculation of a misinformed medieval mad man interpreting falsified fables, and has never been supported by any evidence of any sort from anywhere.

It should be noted that just because an answer is given it doesn't mean that the said answer;
1. answers the question asked.
2. is an adequate answer,
3. that the answer given is factual, accurate or logical.

You may want to consider that when you state over and over that I keep asking you the same questions. =)
That's ironic since I did answer your questions with an actual factual and more than adequate response the first time, yet you repeatedly retreat from each of mine.

Remember, I'm offering something to you that you can't offer to me. I said I could prove evolution to your satisfaction. All you can prove to me is that you're dishonest. I have often said that it is impossible to defend creationism honestly, and you have proven my point. It is a lie that abiogenesis is the same thing as spontaneous generation, and it is a lie that abiogenesis was disproved. It is a lie that evolution is an 'ism' meant to account for the origin of life, the universe, and everything; it is only a theory of biodiversity, and it is the ONLY theory on that topic. It is a lie that creationism counts as an alternate theory, and you have once again refused to correct yourself and admit any of these easily provable truths.

I have repeated each of these to you again and again, and you continue to duck-and-dodge knowing that you cannot admit or accept the truth, no matter how obvious, even when everyone else can see what you're doing. Now unless you attempt to defend, or get wise and confess to each of these errors in the beginning of your next post, then we are done here.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:05 am
Justice FrangipaneUser avatarPosts: 42Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:39 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
WildwoodClaire1 wrote:
On what basis could one assume they have not? What plausible process can the writer propose that would account for a massive increase in rates of radioactive decay within the past few thousand years?


Claire, Thank you for you involvement in this forum. I appreciate your input and am happy to see you here. I watched one of your youtube videos last night and it was very entertaining, the video editing was quite good, did you do that part? I'm sure we would both agree there are a lot of stupid people out there who make some wild assumptions. I think in order to NOT qualify as a "dim bulb" we will need to follow a couple guidelines, feel free to respond directly to the guidelines I suggest.

Projected definitive conclusions are the primary tool of the idiot.
"A" plus "B" must only equal "C" - this would be a good example of what not to do.
It is also important to note that - "A" plus "B" must only equal "C" IS very different than
1 plus 2 must equal 3.

There are absolute truths, if one were to argue from the position of there NOT being any absolute truths it would be best (in my opinion) to avoid conversations with such a person as concessions are almost completely impossible to achieve.

I would suggest that both parties attempt to acknowledge the above concept regarding definitive conclusions. Case in point. Your above statement.

WildwoodClaire1 wrote:
On what basis could one assume they have not? What plausible process can the writer propose that would account for a massive increase in rates of radioactive decay within the past few thousand years?


Both positions require that this aspect of the radiometric dating process be identified as an unknown. You can not say, "Aha! You have failed to provide evidence for a change in decay ergo, your position isn't worth consideration." BOTH parties MUST acknowledge the unknown variables to be transparent with their conclusions. Just because something is current, does NOT mean that it is constant.

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.

Your next point

And, if the Earth is only a few thousand years old, but radiometric dating indicates rocks in the billions of years, then one would have to assume that rates of decay in the recent past were many magnitudes higher than today and that would imply that sufficient energy had been released by all of those unstable isotopes assumed to be billions of years old to melt the entire planet.


This is a good example of "A" plus "B" must only equal "C". I don't think its intentional, but there are other conclusions than world wide destruction. (a favorite on this forum, which always amazes me. I suggest a slight change in a variable in the past and it almost always ends in the destruction of the planet. BUT when asked if the balance needed for life is precise people jump onto the imprecision train and ride it through the opposing argument. I do believe the video I watched of you Claire had you mocking someone that I am unfamiliar with for suggesting the balance of life was delicate and precise. I would like to hear your actual stance unrelated to winning an argument.)

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.

WildwoodClaire1 wrote:
The amount of radiation entering the atmosphere is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the decay rates of elements. The assertion is a clear indication that the writer has no idea what radioactive decay is or how it functions.


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.

Once again we see how the apologist argues that reality itself could be wrong before he will admit that HE might be wrong. "How do you know the laws of physics won't change five seconds from now?" "How do you know you weren't created last Thursday with all your thoughts and memories and apparent age pre-created?"


I am not saying I MUST be right, I am only proposing there MAY be another alternative to what you believe to be true. The reality is that when assumptions are at work, we SHOULD question them and are encouraged to do so. I don't NEED to be true, but the possibility for an alternative view does exist and as objective scientists I believe its appropriate to allow for theories other than our own, even if it chafes our hides a little.

You suggest that I am proposing that reality itself could be wrong... Why didn't you use the word "different" instead of the word "wrong". If something is different than your beliefs, is it automatically wrong? I suggested it was different. Do you believe the world was different when abiogenesis supposedly happened, or do you think the world was "wrong" back then? We ALL believe the world used to be different. Be careful with your words, they will bite you if you don't mind them.

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

3)The sample has remained in a closed system.
If the Bible is true and the whole earth was covered in water at some point then almost everything would be subject to radioactive leaching.
See my previous comment regarding the dating of Zircon crystals. The crystal structure of a mineral is not subject to the leaching invoked by the writer. What's more, many types of igneous rocks are not porous and show no signs of the hypothesized "leaching," so it is reasonable to assume that, they are more or less closed systems (depending on the type of rock we're talking about).


More or less closed systems is a pretty obtuse answer.

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

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

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


Aron Ra, I apologize for making you wait, but this topic is CLEARLY not resolved to my liking. I would assume that you prefer to have questions answered to "your" liking and not someone else's liking. If you need to bail from this conversation because I feel my questions are not properly answered, then do what you have to do. I would prefer you continue as we are very close to getting to my theories and I'm sure your excited to address those. =)
"Don't confuse the facts with the interpretation of the facts. They are in fact, not the same thing." - Anonymous
Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:26 pm
Justice FrangipaneUser avatarPosts: 42Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:39 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

Aron,

I didn't mention this but I have zero problem with you bringing in anyone you need to, or want to, for what ever reason. This is about truth, theories and logic and it really doesn't matter where the truth comes from, if it is so. This is not about who is smarter or even more educated. It's about what is true.

Thank you again for your continued involvement.

Justice
"Don't confuse the facts with the interpretation of the facts. They are in fact, not the same thing." - Anonymous
Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:31 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 497Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

AronRa wrote:I have often said that it is impossible to defend creationism honestly, and you have proven my point. It is a lie that abiogenesis is the same thing as spontaneous generation, and it is a lie that abiogenesis was disproved. It is a lie that evolution is an 'ism' meant to account for the origin of life, the universe, and everything; it is only a theory of biodiversity, and it is the ONLY theory on that topic. It is a lie that creationism counts as an alternate theory, and you have once again refused to correct yourself and admit any of these easily provable truths.

I have repeated each of these to you again and again, and you continue to duck-and-dodge knowing that you cannot admit or accept the truth, no matter how obvious, even when everyone else can see what you're doing. Now unless you attempt to defend, or get wise and confess to each of these errors in the beginning of your next post, then we are done here.
Justice Frangipane wrote:Aron Ra, I apologize for making you wait, but this topic is CLEARLY not resolved to my liking. I would assume that you prefer to have questions answered to "your" liking and not someone else's liking. If you need to bail from this conversation because I feel my questions are not properly answered, then do what you have to do. I would prefer you continue as we are very close to getting to my theories and I'm sure your excited to address those. =)
I guess it doesn't matter whether my questions are answered 'to my liking'. I guess it doesn't matter whether my questions ever get answered at all. How disrespectful. So I guess we're done here.

If you really wanted to continue, then you would've corrected your errors by now, and I wouldn't have had to point them out again and again and again. If what is true really mattered to you, then you would've answered honestly, earnestly, and early on. And you wouldn't have demanded our own thread just to avoid everyone else's input. If you check the original thread, you'll see that all your contentions have been soundly refuted by those who don't mind wasting their time with shameless liars like yourself, but I won't continue to have my every point and query ignored so rudely.

Image
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:52 am
Justice FrangipaneUser avatarPosts: 42Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:39 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

I figured as much.

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

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.

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.
"Don't confuse the facts with the interpretation of the facts. They are in fact, not the same thing." - Anonymous
Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:42 am
Previous
Post new topic   Page 2 of 2
 [ 35 posts ] 
Return to Active Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest