2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2013, 08:50 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(08-12-2013 06:41 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 03:22 PM)Crulax Wrote:  Could you please link the articles to support your claim.
I already provided a link on the moon rocks. Here's a very brief one on KNM-Er 1470 (i.e. the KBS tuff):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.html
Estimated age is 1.9 million years. This is the most complete habilis skull known. Its brain size is 750 cc, large for habilis. It was originally dated at nearly 3 million years old, a figure that caused much confusion as at the time it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom habilis had supposedly descended.

The moral of the story: If the radiometric date disagrees with the presumed evolutionary relationships, keep testing until you get a date you like!

How about you pull your information from somewhere other than Talkorigins. You assume radiometric testing was used to get that initial date even though it doesn't say anything about radiometric testing in the article.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/huma...nm-er-1470

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 12:11 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(08-12-2013 06:45 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Please quote what you see as intellectual dishonesty.
Quite frankly, there's no point in doing that because you're never going to concede that you're intellectually dishonest. Still, there are a number of things which have led me to make that accusation, including, but not limited to the fact that

• Your religious beliefs interfere with your search for the truth. You already have the preconceived opinion that the Earth is only a couple of thousand years old and consequently filter all the available evidence through that lens;
• You refuse to acknowledge that your hypothesis has been shown to be false by the scientific community;
• You purposefully omit facts which demonstrate your hypothesis to be false;
• You quote biased and disreputable sources to support your claims.

(08-12-2013 06:45 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Personally I think it's intellectually dishonest to make such an ambiguous charge of intellectual dishonesty.
Well, that merely goes to show that you don't know what that term means.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Vosur's post
08-12-2013, 12:46 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(08-12-2013 08:50 AM)Crulax Wrote:  How about you pull your information from somewhere other than Talkorigins.
That's an atheist-leaning site. What's your problem with it? I avoid creationist-leaning sites as much as possible. Unfortunately, most evolutionist sites have taken down info on the 1470 dating history because it's so embarrassing.
Quote:You assume radiometric testing was used to get that initial date even though it doesn't say anything about radiometric testing in the article.
No, I know from other sources it was based on radiometric dating. Actually the first radiometric date was over 200 million years.
Quote:http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/huma...nm-er-1470
Yes, this is an example of a site that ignores the dating controversy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 12:54 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(08-12-2013 12:11 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Quite frankly, there's no point in doing that because you're never going to concede that you're intellectually dishonest.
Sure I will. At times, I'm intellectually dishonest. Everyone is.
Quote:Still, there are a number of things which have led me to make that accusation, including, but not limited to the fact that

• Your religious beliefs interfere with your search for the truth. You already have the preconceived opinion that the Earth is only a couple of thousand years old and consequently filter all the available evidence through that lens;
No, I spent my first years as a Christian believing mainstream science on evolution and the age of the universe.
Quote:• You refuse to acknowledge that your hypothesis has been shown to be false by the scientific community;
Which hypothesis is that?
Quote:• You purposefully omit facts which demonstrate your hypothesis to be false;
First, which hypothesis is that? Second, no, I generally don't do my opponents' leg work for them. If that's intellectual dishonesty, everyone here is intellectually dishonest (see above).
Quote:• You quote biased and disreputable sources to support your claims.
Now you're outright lying. I didn't quote that site. I linked to a table of ages found on the site, and noted that the reputable sources for those numbers were included.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 01:20 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(08-12-2013 12:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Sure I will. At times, I'm intellectually dishonest. Everyone is.
I'm not going to hold my breath.

(08-12-2013 12:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  No, I spent my first years as a Christian believing mainstream science on evolution and the age of the universe.
You don't seem to understand what I said. Your claim that the solution to the so-called "starlight problem" is that God created light mid-way to Earth is a prime example of looking at the evidence through the lens of preconceived religious beliefs.

(08-12-2013 12:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Which hypothesis is that?
(08-12-2013 12:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  First, which hypothesis is that?
Young Earth Creationism, obviously.

(08-12-2013 12:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Second, no, I generally don't do my opponents' leg work for them. If that's intellectual dishonesty, everyone here is intellectually dishonest (see above).
You did not address what I actually said.

(08-12-2013 12:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Now you're outright lying. I didn't quote that site. I linked to a table of ages found on the site, and noted that the reputable sources for those numbers were included.

(07-12-2013 11:11 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Interestingly, the moon rock data I linked to is from an anti-evolution website run by an electrical engineer who's been published in journals.

I'm sorry, what was that again?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
08-12-2013, 06:47 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(08-12-2013 01:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 12:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Sure I will. At times, I'm intellectually dishonest. Everyone is.
I'm not going to hold my breath.
I already did, in what you quoted.

Quote:You don't seem to understand what I said. Your claim that the solution to the so-called "starlight problem" is that God created light mid-way to Earth is a prime example of looking at the evidence through the lens of preconceived religious beliefs.
It's an example of a conclusion based on facts and a model. Science does the same. There's no direct evidence for the Oort cloud. It's an invention to explain long-period comets and a billions-year-old solar system. As long as it's presented as a possibility and not fact, it's not intellectually dishonest.

Quote:Young Earth Creationism, obviously.
No, that's not obvious. I set out to show problems with radiometric dating, and an offshoot or two came out of it, but I in no way claimed that I was out to prove YEC. You're being intellectually dishonest in misrepresenting the discussion.

Quote:You did not address what I actually said.
I disagree.

Quote:
Quote:Now you're outright lying. I didn't quote that site. I linked to a table of ages found on the site, and noted that the reputable sources for those numbers were included.

Interestingly, the moon rock data I linked to is from an anti-evolution website run by an electrical engineer who's been published in journals.

I'm sorry, what was that again?
Same thing. You haven't shown a quote from the site, and by introducing that line with "Interestingly," I was clearly indicating it was an aside.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 07:28 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(08-12-2013 06:47 PM)alpha male Wrote:  I already did, in what you quoted.
You admitted that you are intellectually dishonest at times, not that you have been intellectually dishonest in this debate.

(08-12-2013 06:47 PM)alpha male Wrote:  It's an example of a conclusion based on facts and a model. Science does the same. There's no direct evidence for the Oort cloud. It's an invention to explain long-period comets and a billions-year-old solar system. As long as it's presented as a possibility and not fact, it's not intellectually dishonest.
Yes, scientific hypothesis are based on facts and models; your hypothesis that "God made it that way", on the other hand, is based on neither. It is inherently unscientific because it is both untestable and unfalsifiable.

(08-12-2013 06:47 PM)alpha male Wrote:  No, that's not obvious. I set out to show problems with radiometric dating, and an offshoot or two came out of it, but I in no way claimed that I was out to prove YEC. You're being intellectually dishonest in misrepresenting the discussion.
Indeed, except that I never said you were out to prove YEC. I said that you are intellectually dishonest because you, a proponent of the YEC hypothesis, refuse to admit that it has been falsified by scientists.

(08-12-2013 06:47 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Same thing. You haven't shown a quote from the site, and by introducing that line with "Interestingly," I was clearly indicating it was an aside.
I assume you're being intentionally obtuse at this point. Whether you directly quote a text from the website or merely send us a link to it is irrelevant to the point that you are using it as your source.

In any case, I have no desire to continue this discussion, knowing that you are either unwilling or unable to be intellectually honest.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
08-12-2013, 09:06 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 09:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  This is my one thing. Everybody has something that just drives them up the wall and this is mine. How can you live in the world today with cellphones and spaceships and a fucking robot on mars and say "Scientists, yeah, what do they know?" and I will call an idiot an idiot. However you might be right about him trolling himself, which is why I gave him the challenge if he is a reg YEC he will jump at the chance to link some disproven study by some creationist think tank, if however he is just a troll he will ignore that post as he did the part of my post earlier that shredded YEC.

It's called NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). The idea is that you have science and religion, and you can't use one to examine the other. Now, it's a blatantly obvious escape hatch argument that is completely begging the question, but there it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 09:43 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 09:45 AM)alpha male Wrote:  More fully, gasoline is made from oil which comes from plant and animal matter compressed in a short time.

Impressive.

Have you considered working for Exxon/Mobile and maybe head up their Oil Exploration department? I'm sure they go by the 6,000 year old earth model, too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBear's post
09-12-2013, 07:19 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(08-12-2013 07:28 PM)Vosur Wrote:  You admitted that you are intellectually dishonest at times, not that you have been intellectually dishonest in this debate.
Your excuse for not quoting me was that I would never admit intellectual dishonesty in general: "you're never going to concede that you're intellectually dishonest."

Quote:Yes, scientific hypothesis are based on facts and models; your hypothesis that "God made it that way", on the other hand, is based on neither. It is inherently unscientific because it is both untestable and unfalsifiable.

Indeed, except that I never said you were out to prove YEC. I said that you are intellectually dishonest because you, a proponent of the YEC hypothesis, refuse to admit that it has been falsified by scientists.
You contradict yourself from one reply to the next. If it's not falsifiable, it hasn't been falsified by scientists. You can't have it both ways.

Quote:I assume you're being intentionally obtuse at this point. Whether you directly quote a text from the website or merely send us a link to it is irrelevant to the point that you are using it as your source.
Sorry, but when you quote and cite a source, you don't become the source. The link gives the source:
Quote:References from Science, 30 January, 1970
“The Moon Issue” dedicated to the proceedings of the Apollo 11 Lunar Science Conference
1. Mitsunobu Tatsumoto, et al., “Age of the Moon: An Isotopic Study of Uranium-Thorium-Lead Systematics of Lunar Samples” pages 461-463.
2. A. L. Albee, et al., “Ages, Irradiation History, and Chemical Composition of Lunar Rocks from the Sea of Tranquillity” pages 463-466.
3. Grenville Turner, “Argon-40/Argon-39 Dating of Lunar Rock Samples” pages 466-468.
4. Leon T. Silver, “Uranium-Thorium-Lead Isotope Relations in Lunar Materials” pages 468-471.
5. K. Gopalan, et al., “Rubidium-Strontium, Uranium, and Thorium-Lead Dating of Lunar Material” pages 471-473.
6. P. M. Hurley, et al., “Rubidium-Strontium Relations in Tranquillity Base Samples” pages 473-474.
7. William Compston, et al., “Rubidium-Strontium Chronology and Chemistry of Lunar Material” pages 474-476.
8. V. Rama Murthy, et al., “Rubidium-Strontium Age and Elemental and Isotopic Abundances of Some Trace Elements in Lunar Samples” pages 476-479.
9. R. K. Wanless, et al., “Age Determinations and Isotopic Abundance Measurements on Lunar Samples” pages 479-480.

Quote:In any case, I have no desire to continue this discussion, knowing that you are either unwilling or unable to be intellectually honest.
More likely because you're being refuted at every turn.Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: