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.

Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 64 of 73
 [ 1447 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2433Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Next blunder: putting words in another person's mouth.



Let's assume that all your identified blunders are something real rather than an expression of your vapid prejudice.

This still leaves you as a human being who needs to find strangers on the internet to hate on to salve some form of egotistical or existential angst.

How sad do you need to be to get pleasure from the silly behavior you're engaging in?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:04 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

I'm not sure which is funnier: That Bernhard has decided to drive-by us after all this time, or that he's such a lousy shot that he has to do it again and again.

Also it seems that Bernhard thinks that using logic is a blunder. That actually explains a lot.
Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:05 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2433Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Believing the faith ( atheists call it science) that rocks can tell time.



Go on Bernhard - put your money where your overly large mouth is and explain what this is supposed to mean.

I do hope it's a fundamentalist rejection of radiometric dating, because any capitulation of it that says 'rocks tell time' is in for a world of education.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:05 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

You know the decay laws were empirically derived, right?

Of course not.
Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:41 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Of course a fundamental rejection of radiometric dating on rocks that supposedly existed before man walked the earth. The definition of science is it must be observed.

Therefore it's faith ... blind faith

Congratulations, you have now completely rejected forensics. Since we were not there to observe it, we cannot convict anyone in a court of law. That's what you're saying.

Also, what you're saying is that you don't actually have any good reasons to believe that God created the universe, that Jesus existed, died and was resurrected, or in fact ANY of the contents of the bible. At all. That you have to take them all on nothing but faith, blind faith. Because guess what, you weren't there to observe any of it.

I'm glad we got it settled that according to your own standards, you have zero good evidence-based reasons for any of your beliefs.

The problem is that I actually don't agree with any of that. We can have good reasons for believing that certain events transpired in history, without us being required to have been present to observe them ourselves. This really just amounts to basic historical hypothesis testing.

Which usually goes basically like this: If process X happened in the past, we should expect to find evidence A and B. So we go out and OBSERVE if A and B really is there. So historical science still employs empirical observation in hypothesis testing. It works in geology, astronomy, biology and in forensics. It works everywhere.

If a man once existed that was named Jesus and he did fantastic stuff, we would expect there to be well-attested written records of it outside of just religious scriptures.

If Johnny killed Barbara, there is certain evidence we expect should exist. His fingerprints on the knife, for example. Blood spatter on his clothes. His bootprints on the floor. Blood and skin fragments under Barbara's finger-nails matches Johnny's blood and DNA, implying she defended herself against him. And so on. Johnny also had a motive, as Barbara had been seen flirting with other men in his presence. etc. etc.

We don't have to have been present to observe the actual murder unfold, to be able to say with reasonable certainty that Johnny really did kill Barbara.

This idea that we have to be present and directly witness certain events transpire, otherwise it's "just blind faith" is patently false.

This thread should be called Blunders that Bernhard.visscher make all the time.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:01 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Image
Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:20 pm
CollecemallPosts: 384Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

I'm starting to remember why I had Blathering Bernhard blocked. I was of the hope that he'd provide unintentional comedy this time round.... I think he's on his way back to the foe list.
"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire
Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:47 am
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:You know the decay laws were empirically derived, right?

Of course not.


the reliability of radiometric dating has not been shown in any robust way.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:06 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Nothing will change the fact that even according to evolutionists man wasn't there to see the rock.... everything claimed to be empirically derived to celebrate that rocks birthday is faith

Thank you for proving you don't even know what the words faith and empirical mean.

If you can do observational hypothesis testing then it isn't faith. Faith is belief in the absense of evidence. Observational hypothesis testing is textbook evidence-based testing.

You literally couldn't be more wrong.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:05 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
hackenslash wrote:You know the decay laws were empirically derived, right?

Of course not.


the reliability of radiometric dating has not been shown in any robust way.

The reliability of rediometric dating has been shown in an extremely robust way.

See how idiotic it is to just sit there declare your useless opinion with staunch conviction? We can do this all day. You're going to have to come up with something better.

Which I will now do, because I know that you yourself can't. Here's a graph from a paper on Carbon 14 calibration with 230Th/234U/238U :
Image

The question you need to answer is this: Why do the curves agree?

Fairbanks, R. G.; Mortlock, R. A.; Chiu, T. C.; Cao, L.; Kaplan, A.; Guilderson, T. P.; Fairbanks, T. W.; Bloom, A. L.; Grootes, P. M.; Nadeau, M. J. Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals Quaternary Science Reviews
Volume 24, Issues 16–17, September 2005, Pages 1781-1796 [DOI 10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.04.007]
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Last edited by Rumraket on Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:17 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Nice you can see billions of years back. I cannot.
I don't consider it a shame to say so. If you can .....to hold the faith that billions of years ago it happened like you claim it happened.... that's your faith speaking. You are making it your religion.

Are you familiar with the concept of the doppler effect and do you know what a redshift is?

Image

No, creationists astronomers have not been able to solve the starlight problem.

It turns out it is only you who believe things on faith, Bernhard.visscher. Only you.

Not only to you believe things without evidence, you belive things despite what the evidence shows.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:25 am
SparhafocPosts: 2433Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Of course a fundamental rejection of radiometric dating on rocks that supposedly existed before man walked the earth. The definition of science is it must be observed.

Therefore it's faith ... blind faith



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Clueless.

It IS observed, chap. That's how we know of radioactive isotopes decay rate.

What Bernhard means is that Bernhard's never bothered to do any hard work and consequently hasn't observed them.

If you close your eyes and shout LA LA LA, you might convince yourself that the real world doesn't exist, but to everyone else you look like a moron closing his eyes and shouting LA LA LA.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:57 am
SparhafocPosts: 2433Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
hackenslash wrote:You know the decay laws were empirically derived, right?

Of course not.


the reliability of radiometric dating has not been shown in any robust way.



Ignorance asserted as fact.

In reality, it's been shown beyond reasonable doubt, and was first discovered over a century ago.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:58 am
SparhafocPosts: 2433Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Nice you can see billions of years back. I cannot.


And there you go.

Bernhard's too lazy to do any hard work, so he denies on instinct rather than on evidence.


Bernhard.visscher wrote:I don't consider it a shame to say so.


Of course you don't, but to everyone with a clue, you look a self-blinded fool.


Bernhard.visscher wrote: If you can .....to hold the faith that billions of years ago it happened like you claim it happened.... that's your faith speaking. You are making it your religion.


Idiocy. Empirical reality informs us, not the other way round.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:59 am
SparhafocPosts: 2433Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Nothing will change the fact that even according to evolutionists man wasn't there to see the rock.... everything claimed to be empirically derived to celebrate that rocks birthday is faith



What idiocy.

Empirical - can observe.

Rock - here today

Ergo.... reality is directly contrary to your counter-factual blather.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:04 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Nice you can see billions of years back. I cannot.
I don't consider it a shame to say so. If you can .....to hold the faith that billions of years ago it happened like you claim it happened.... that's your faith speaking. You are making it your religion.


Gosh, it's almost like you didn't read it...
Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:08 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
hackenslash wrote:You know the decay laws were empirically derived, right?

Of course not.


the reliability of radiometric dating has not been shown in any robust way.


I see my colleague has more than dealt with this, but I'm hosting on my blog the best smackdown of this tripe ever written, so I have to:

http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... ng-is.html
Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:10 am
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Sparhafoc wrote:
Ignorance asserted as fact.

In reality, it's been shown beyond reasonable doubt, and was first discovered over a century ago.



well my position regarding the reliability of radiometric dating happens to be C
c) suspend taking a position until taking a position becomes credible


given that you are holding the positive position and I am holding skepticism, you have a grate opportunity to teach me a lesson, on how logic works and how someone is suppose to support an assertion.


so please show that RD is reliable
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:00 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2433Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
Ignorance asserted as fact.

In reality, it's been shown beyond reasonable doubt, and was first discovered over a century ago.



well my position regarding the reliability of radiometric dating happens to be C
c) suspend taking a position until taking a position becomes credible


given that you are holding the positive position and I am holding skepticism, you have a grate opportunity to teach me a lesson, on how logic works and how someone is suppose to support an assertion.


so please show that RD is reliable



It is credible, it is verified via millions of experiments.

The National Center for Science Education has addressed this fatuous Creationist canard because it is mendacious to a fault:

https://ncse.com/library-resource/radio ... -does-work

Dating of The Mt Vesuvius Eruption

In the early afternoon of August 24, 79 CE, Mt Vesuvius erupted violently, sending hot ash flows speeding down its flanks. These flows buried and destroyed Pompeii and other nearby Roman cities. We know the exact day of this eruption because Pliny the Younger carefully recorded the event. In 1997 a team of scientists from the Berkeley Geochronology Center and the University of Naples decided to see if the40Ar/39Ar method of radiometric dating could accurately measure the age of this very young (by geological standards) volcanic material. They separated sanidine crystals from a sample of one of the ash flows. Incremental heating experiments on 12 samples of sanidine yielded 46 data points that resulted in an isochron age of 1925 94 years. The actual age of the flow in 1997 was 1918 years. Is this just a coincidence? No — it is the result of extremely careful analyses using a technique that works.

This is not the only dating study to be done on an historic lava flow. Two extensive studies done more than 25 years ago involved analyzing the isotopic composition of argon in such flows to determine if the source of the argon was atmospheric, as must be assumed in K-Ar dating (Dalrymple 1969, 26 flows; Krummenacher 1970, 19 flows). Both studies detected, in a few of the flows, deviations from atmospheric isotopic composition, most often in the form of excess 40Ar. The majority of flows, however, had no detectable excess 40Ar and thus gave correct ages as expected. Of the handful of flows that did contain excess 40Ar, only a few did so in significant amounts. The 122 BCE flow from Mt Etna, for example, gave an erroneous age of 0.25 0.08 Ma. Note, however, that even an error of 0.25 Ma would be insignificant in a 20 Ma flow with equivalent potassium content. Austin (1996) has documented excess 40Ar in the 1986 dacite flow from Mount St Helens, but the amounts are insufficient to produce significant errors in all but the youngest rocks.

The 79 CE Mt Vesuvius flow, the dating of which is described above, also contained excess 40Ar. The40Ar/39Ar isochron method used by the Berkeley scientists, however, does not require any assumptions about the composition of the argon trapped in the rock when it formed — it may be atmospheric or any other composition for that matter. Thus any potential error due to excess 40Ar was eliminated by the use of this technique, which was not available when the studies by Dalrymple (1969) and Krummenacher (1970) were done.

Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks. The 40Ar/39Ar technique, which is now used instead of K-Ar methods for most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40Ar, should it be present.



The reason you don't believe it is not scientific. You have no scientific basis, no scientific understanding, and this is routinely made evident by the way you witter about science with words like 'proof'.

Instead, the reason you reject radiometric dating is for religious reasons - for presuppositions you won't inspect - for faith based belief over empirical evidence.

This is the crux of the difference between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists. The latter are, at least potentially, open to changing their mind based on the evidence. Creationists just ignore anything inconvenient to their belief system.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:28 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2433Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

US Geological Service:

https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

The Age of the Earth
How do we know the Age of the Earth?
Radiometric dating
Adapted from The Age of the Earth , by the Branch of Isotope Geology, United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California
How do we know the Age of the Earth?

The Earth is a constantly changing planet. Its crust is continually being created, modified, and destroyed. As a result, rocks that record its earliest history have not been found and probably no longer exist. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that the Earth and the other bodies of the Solar System are 4.5-4.6 billion years old, and that the Milky Way Galaxy and the Universe are older still. The principal evidence for the antiquity of Earth and its cosmic surroundings is:

The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia.

The oldest Moon rocks are from the lunar highlands and were formed when the early lunar crust was partially or entirely molten. These rocks, of which only a few were returned by the Apollo missions, have been dated by two methods at between 4.4-4.5 billion years in age.
The majority of the 70 well-dated meteorites have ages of 4.4-4.6 billion years. These meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids and represent some of the most primitive material in the solar system, have been dated by 5 independent radiometric dating methods.
The "best" age for the Earth is based on the time required for the lead isotopes in four very old lead ores (galena) to have evolved from the composition of lead at the time the Solar System formed, as recorded in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. This "model lead age" is 4.54 billion years.
The evidence for the antiquity of the Earth and Solar System is consistent with evidence for an even greater age for the Universe and Milky Way Galaxy. a) The age of the Universe can be estimated from the velocity and distance of galaxies as the universe expands. The estimates range from 7 to 20 billion years, depending on whether the expansion is constant or is slowing due to gravitational attraction. b) The age of the Galaxy is estimated to be 14-18 billion years from the rate of evolution of stars in globular clusters, which are thought to be the oldest stars in the Galaxy. The age of the elements in the Galaxy, based on the production ratios of osmium isotopes in supernovae and the change in that ratio over time due to radioactive decay, is 8.6-15.7 billion years. Theoretical considerations indicate that the Galaxy formed within a billion years of the beginning of the Universe. c) Combining the data from a) and b), the "best, i.e., most consistent, age of the universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years. For more current information on the age of the universe, visit NASA's Planck Mission studies.

Radiometric dating

Spontaneous breakdown or decay of atomic nuclei, termed radioactive decay, is the basis for all radiometric dating methods. Radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by French physicist Henri Becquerel. By 1907 study of the decay products of uranium (lead and intermediate radioactive elements that decay to lead) demonstrated to B. B. Boltwood that the lead/uranium ratio in uranium minerals increased with geologic age and might provide a geological dating tool.

As radioactive Parent atoms decay to stable daughter atoms (as uranium decays to lead) each disintegration results in one more atom of the daughter than was initially present and one less atom of the parent. The probability of a parent atom decaying in a fixed period of time is always the same for all atoms of that type regardless of temperature, pressure, or chemical conditions. This probability of decay is the decay constant. The time required for one-half of any original number of parent atoms to decay is the half-life, which is related to the decay constant by a simple mathematical formula.

All rocks and minerals contain long-lived radioactive elements that were incorporated into Earth when the Solar System formed. These radioactive elements constitute independent clocks that allow geologists to determine the age of the rocks in which they occur. The radioactive parent elements used to date rocks and minerals are:

...

Radiometric dating using the naturally-occurring radioactive elements is simple in concept even though technically complex. If we know the number of radioactive parent atoms present when a rock formed and the number present now, we can calculate the age of the rock using the decay constant. The number of parent atoms originally present is simply the number present now plus the number of daughter atoms formed by the decay, both of which are quantities that can be measured. Samples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are altered, contaminated, or disturbed by later heating or chemical events.

In addition to the ages of Earth, Moon, and meteorites, radiometric dating has been used to determine ages of fossils, including early man, timing of glaciations, ages of mineral deposits, recurrence rates of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the history of reversals of Earth's magnetic field, and the age and duration of a wide variety of other geological events and processes.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:29 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 64 of 73
 [ 1447 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests