2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2013, 12:29 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 12:11 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 12:01 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Oh you mean those things that are made of ice, dust particles, and small rocks that incinerate when they enter an atmosphere or get too close to solar radiation?
Yep, they get smaller with every pass of the sun and eventually disappear.
Quote:Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), no comet or comet particle has ever been obtained save one... and that one dated 28 millions years.
I don't know, and please give a link as I'm curious. Not sure what your point is, as 28 million years conflicts with the claim, "Every single piece of evidence ever obtained indicates a history of billions of years of deep time."

Yeah, I think I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you were saying that comets are young and don't support an old universe. The 28M years was to show that the debris that we obtained from the comet was old.

Anyway, the comet exploded over the area that is Egypt now. The remnants crashed down and created yellow glass... some of that was made into jewelry for King Tut. The yellow glass was scattered in a 6K kilometer radius and they found a small black nucleus in the 90s (I think... again, I'm going off memory here).

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
09-12-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 12:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 12:11 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Yep, they get smaller with every pass of the sun and eventually disappear.
I don't know, and please give a link as I'm curious. Not sure what your point is, as 28 million years conflicts with the claim, "Every single piece of evidence ever obtained indicates a history of billions of years of deep time."

Yeah, I think I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you were saying that comets are young and don't support an old universe. The 28M years was to show that the debris that we obtained from the comet was old.

Anyway, the comet exploded over the area that is Egypt now. The remnants crashed down and created yellow glass... some of that was made into jewelry for King Tut. The yellow glass was scattered in a 6K kilometer radius and they found a small black nucleus in the 90s (I think... again, I'm going off memory here).

I like how the YEC putz uses comets as his example and the second someone brings up an inconvenient fact he knows nothing about them. Intellectual dishonesty through and through.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
09-12-2013, 12:55 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 12:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 12:11 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Yep, they get smaller with every pass of the sun and eventually disappear.
I don't know, and please give a link as I'm curious. Not sure what your point is, as 28 million years conflicts with the claim, "Every single piece of evidence ever obtained indicates a history of billions of years of deep time."

Yeah, I think I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you were saying that comets are young and don't support an old universe. The 28M years was to show that the debris that we obtained from the comet was old.
28 million years isn't billions of years, which was the claim. It wasn't an over/under x thousands of years claim. A 28 million year old comet is not evidence of billions of years of time, and the claim was that every piece of evidence ever obtained supports billions of years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 01:03 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 12:48 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I like how the YEC putz uses comets as his example and the second someone brings up an inconvenient fact he knows nothing about them. Intellectual dishonesty through and through.
See my response above. It's not at all inconvenient to me, and I actually would like to know more about it. Something in the low millions doesn't support a claim of billions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 01:06 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 01:03 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 12:48 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I like how the YEC putz uses comets as his example and the second someone brings up an inconvenient fact he knows nothing about them. Intellectual dishonesty through and through.
See my response above. It's not at all inconvenient to me, and I actually would like to know more about it. Something in the low millions doesn't support a claim of billions.

http://archive.dailycal.org/article.php?id=108481

Quote:"(The research) tells me that that particle was still in the solar system two million years after the first solar system solids formed," said Jennifer Matzel, postdoctoral researcher at the lab and an author of the study. "We thought these particles would have formed and been immediately transported out several million years earlier. It expands the time scale in thinking about the formation of comets."

She said by determining the composition of the comet, researchers were able to determine the comet's age. Because the Wild 2 comet was the first comet sample to be tested, much of the research was done by comparing the comet's properties with meteorites that have been aged and analyzed in the past, Matzel said.

Hmm seems that the age of comets do not negate the much older age of the universe or the solar system but the last straw you grasped at is yet another nail in your self-made coffin as to a 6000 year old universe.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
09-12-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 12:55 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 12:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Yeah, I think I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you were saying that comets are young and don't support an old universe. The 28M years was to show that the debris that we obtained from the comet was old.
28 million years isn't billions of years, which was the claim. It wasn't an over/under x thousands of years claim. A 28 million year old comet is not evidence of billions of years of time, and the claim was that every piece of evidence ever obtained supports billions of years.

From my understanding, someone made the extreme claim that "everything" is evidence of a universe that is billions of years old. So, you are right that a 28 million year old comet isn't evidence that the universe is billions of years old. The whole "everything" argument was either overstated or hyperbole.

That being said, a 28 million year old comet isn't evidence against a billions of years old universe, either, and I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing (anymore, at least) that everything in the universe can be directly used as evidence that the universe is billions of years old. So far as I can tell, you're having an argument that no one else is having, and everyone else forgot the origin of your comet example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 01:52 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 01:06 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Hmm seems that the age of comets do not negate the much older age of the universe or the solar system but the last straw you grasped at is yet another nail in your self-made coffin as to a 6000 year old universe.
First, my argument on comets has been about long-period comets and the Oort cloud. Wild-2 is a short-period comet.

Second, the sample wasn't radiometrically dated, as it didn't have any daughter element present. The conclusion of relative age is drawn from the model used, and so is not evidence supporting the model.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...rdust-coki
Quote:Nuth calls the isotope analysis "great work" but notes that the interpretation—that materials moved outward across the solar system for a surprisingly long time—relies on the crucial assumption that aluminum 26 was evenly distributed throughout the nebula.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 01:57 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
I didn't plan on responding to you again, but since you couldn't take the hint and leave it alone, I feel the need to defend myself.

(09-12-2013 07:19 AM)alpha male Wrote:  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."

A comment which was preceded by the following post.

(07-12-2013 04:16 PM)Vosur Wrote:  At least the last YEC we had here (Phil_GA) was intellectually honest in his debates. Dodgy

So there's that. Drinking Beverage

(09-12-2013 07:19 AM)alpha male Wrote:  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.
See, this is precisely why a debate with you is futile. You are either so dishonest that you intentionally misrepresent the arguments of your opponent or you are so daft that you can't properly address them. I said that your hypothesis "God made it [light] that way" is unfalsifiable, not that YEC, the hypothesis that the Earth is only 6000 years old, is unfalsifiable. While the former cannot be falsified by science, the latter can and has been.

(09-12-2013 07:19 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Sorry, but when you quote and cite a source, you don't become the source.
And here you misrepresent what I said once again. Since you obtained the information from the website, not from its alleged sources, it is your source of information.

source
Syllabification: (source)
Pronunciation: /sôrs/
noun
a place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained

I doubt that you even bothered to check whether the information in the table was actually obtained from those sources.

(09-12-2013 07:19 AM)alpha male Wrote:  More likely because you're being refuted at every turn.Tongue
Good one.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 01:22 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  From my understanding, someone made the extreme claim that "everything" is evidence of a universe that is billions of years old. So, you are right that a 28 million year old comet isn't evidence that the universe is billions of years old. The whole "everything" argument was either overstated or hyperbole.
It was overstated, as was Revenant's position on science and technology as whole being dependent on an old universe. Both positions are ridiculous. You guys should police your own ranks and shoot these kind of claims down before they become fodder for the likes of me.Smile
Quote:That being said, a 28 million year old comet isn't evidence against a billions of years old universe, either, and I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing (anymore, at least) that everything in the universe can be directly used as evidence that the universe is billions of years old. So far as I can tell, you're having an argument that no one else is having, and everyone else forgot the origin of your comet example.
The claim is the claim. It's poor form to blame me for taking it at face value. BTW, the 28 Million years is supposedly the date of the strike, not the comet, the age of which wasn't determined.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 02:26 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 01:58 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 01:22 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  From my understanding, someone made the extreme claim that "everything" is evidence of a universe that is billions of years old. So, you are right that a 28 million year old comet isn't evidence that the universe is billions of years old. The whole "everything" argument was either overstated or hyperbole.
It was overstated, as was Revenant's position on science and technology as whole being dependent on an old universe. Both positions are ridiculous. You guys should police your own ranks and shoot these kind of claims down before they become fodder for the likes of me.Smile

In my defense, I took a bit of a break when this thread ballooned to so many pages. Other than that, I frequently correct things that I feel are inaccurate, even if they might otherwise fit in with my world view.


(09-12-2013 01:58 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:That being said, a 28 million year old comet isn't evidence against a billions of years old universe, either, and I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing (anymore, at least) that everything in the universe can be directly used as evidence that the universe is billions of years old. So far as I can tell, you're having an argument that no one else is having, and everyone else forgot the origin of your comet example.
The claim is the claim. It's poor form to blame me for taking it at face value. BTW, the 28 Million years is supposedly the date of the strike, not the comet, the age of which wasn't determined.

I'm not blaming you. I'm saying that I think you're having an argument that no one else is having, which is why they're getting confused about your statements. You are refuting something that was either overstated or hyperbole, and they are responding solely to your comments out of context of why you were saying them. That being said, further trying to prove the point would likely be pedantic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: