Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable

On Jan 7, 11:58 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:25 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On Jan 6, 7:43 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 6, 3:22 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 6, 3:15 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 6, 9:29 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:21:43 -0800, Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:15 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:38 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip

Further the assumption inherent that one knows how much daughter
product was originally in the sample collected is tenuous if not
impossible to know.

Are you aware that you do not need to know the starting concentration
of the decay product to calculate a perfectly acceptable age using
isochron dating?

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

Chris

So classical radiometric dating is so uncertain that you propose
isochron as a replacement.

Thanks for the admissiono of your faulty reasoning and fraudulent
post.......now we're getting somewhere.

Ah. So every improvement is an admission of failure? Now I understand
why your arguments don't seem to be getting any better, and why
you're so resistant to learning any actual facts. We are getting
somewhere.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah the original claim was 5% for radiometric dating which applies
only to the best methods and full quantity samples, etc. Thus
Isochrons were developed all the while the "classical methods" were
advertised as perfect, no problems, blah

I apologize. I made a rather serious error- tenfold!- when I quoted
that 5% figure.

According to the US Geological Survey, the accuracy 40Ar/39Ar is
between 0.1-0.5%

http://creationwiki.org/Non-correlating_and_inconsistent_datesasan
example of imperfection in these techniques.

That is indeed an imperfection in geochronology, EP. As a matter of
fact, it's a well-known and acknowledged phenomenon. It's not a
problem because no one in their right mind uses those techniques on
lava flows less than a half-million years old. When you use Pb dating
on fresh igneous rock it gives spurious results. So what? We've known
that for decades. It does not mean that when we date rocks half a
billion years old with that technique the same issues arise, because
they don't.

Also note that this jibes with what I wrote earlier. When the
assumptions are violated, the answers from different techniques are
all over the place, not clustered together. And different techniques
gave quite disparate answers when the assumptions were violated- in
this case, with knowledge and forethought.

Too bad for your team, EP.

Chris
PS: Care to provide a cite for a scientist claiming perfection in
anything? The last one I can think of is Lord Kelvin claiming we knew
everything in physics that there was to know. That was just a couple
years before Einstein's "miracle year".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We can start right here "anything" "Nothing supernatural has ever
happened...everything that ever happened was natural...everything ever
seen, observed,etc, was natural.....100% of everything in the universe
is natural...etc."

This is called omnisience...what evos claim for themselves.

Wrong again. It's based on an examination of history. Of course, you
could prove me wrong by citing one- just one- example of a
supernatural event that has been adequately documented.

The resurrection of Christ is one of the most historically studied
events in history and no one no one has a scintilla of evidence to
overturn the reports written by the eye witnesses all within 60 years
of the events. I recommend you review the evidence, the writings, the
several books written by people like C. S. Lewis Frank Morison, the
Church Fathers.

CS Lewis was not a historian. He was an apologist. I admit I am not
familiar with Morison (is that spelling correct?) but I had the
benefit of a fine Jesuit education that included quite a bit of
theology and religious education. I can also tell you that you need
to go back and read your bible: there were no eye witnesses to the
Resurrection. Some writers claim to have spoken to people who claimed
to have seen Jesus after the Crucifixion but no one saw the
Resurrection. As to the time frame, you can have your 60 years,
although most scholars seem to add at least 20 to that. Have you ever
played telegraph? You know, the game where one person whispers
something into someone's ear, and they whisper it into the next
person's, and so on, and then you compare what the last person heard
to what the first person said. Now multiply that by 60 years. On top
of embroidered folk tales, exaggerations, mistaken memories, and the
like, you have the simple fact that eyewitness testimony is the least
reliable sort. Any forensic evidence is preferable to eyewitness
accounts. That's why the Church Fathers- in the Catholic Church, at
any rate- emphasize faith rather then rational explanations. I cannot
fault that reasoning at all, because any other road leads to simple
ridicule. There is no evidence to "overturn" the Resurrection because
there's no evidence to refute.

Disproving the resurrection would have been duck soup for Rome, Jewish
authorities by producing a body, forcing confessions from believers
as to what happened, none of whch did or has ever happened.

Why should they have cared?

The wide expansion of Christianity took place within 100 years of the
resurrection despite stiff resistence from the Romans, the traditional
Jewish leaders including torture, imprisonment, death threats, murder
and impoverishment. All based on the evidence and faith of the
resurrection event. There is no rational reason for such if the
resuttection were a myth, a fraud, or a wish fulfillment.

Myth can be a powerful driving force, you got that right. Probably
stronger than reality.


You wouldn't accept any evidence presented because you have made a
conscious choice to oppose all and every aspect of Christianity and
Jesus Himself.

Fallacy: poisoning the well.

Yet if you watched "Before Dinosaurs" on Discovery Channel where
people present cartoonish histories of fish with big brains, spiders
who live in giant holesfilled with webs and monitor tripwires, early
reptiles that have pushup contests between males to decide who gets
the girl...............all based on a closet full of bones, zero DNA
and a football field full of imaginary BS......................this
you believe.

Where do you get this stuff? What the heck are you talking about here?
In fact, I have never see the show you mention. I actually don't
recall the last time I watched television. I think it was the game the
Packers won in overtime- but I went to bed at the end of the third
quarter :(



And to think a few shrink visits at an early age and you could have
been sane.

I assume this is the more civil attitude toward discourse you
mentioned in your New Year's resolutions.

How about those baramins? Cockapoos and coyotes? South American and
Australian possums? Australian and Eurasian bee-eaters? Are there any
classifications that contain more than one baramin? Do any baramins
contain more than one of any other classification?

Chris

PS I ordered a volume called "Beyond Neo-Darwinism" edited by (I
think) Ho and Saunders. It has an article by Nelson & Platnick in it-
is that the one you cited earlier? I think you might have listed the
date as 1984; this volume came out in 1981. I hope I am getting the
right one. Thanks.





Yah, didn't think so.

The way we know how old object A is for sure is when it falls within
the record keeping of human history...say an authenticated writing
stating a date found in proximity to the article. Everthing else is a
mathmatical model of physical processes based on a set of assumptions
and idealizations. There is a reason why labs refer to dating results
as "Apparent" age.

It seems perfectly rational to assume that the universe and everything
in it was created with Apparent age.

Except for the fact there's no evidence for that. If you wish to
accept Last-Thursdayism, be my guest. Most people think it's a little
silly.

At any rate , no pun intended, I intend getting a copy of the RATE
project book and reading it.

A fine idea. But please, in the meantime, read up on baraminology.
Cockapoos and coyotes, remember?

Chris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages