(02-13-2015 07:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 06:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 11:44 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 08:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 05:56 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  You're describing the very premise of radiometric dating. We know, KNOW, that potassium-40 breaks down to argon-40, and we know that it does so at a constant rate. These are things that have been measured.

Not true. We know that it breaks down at a constant rate only for the timeframe we have measured it, and under the constants we have performed such measurements.

Sort of like F=ma. For hundreds of years we knew, KNEW, that Force = mass times acceleration.

Until we discovered it wasnt.

But still, today, you can use F=ma and usually be right. Up until you approach the speed of light, when the equation becomes crap.

The only difference between F=ma and your rock dating equation is that we have yet to discover under what circumstances the equation becomes crap.

But rest assured, there are scenarios that will make the equation crap. When you extend the time horizon to millions of years, there are multiple scenarios that could occur to stink it up.

Yeah, you nailed it. Keep asking to prove the negative - I'm sure you'll get there eventually. Look, there isn't just one method for dating rocks and when the conditions warrant, multiple methods are used to confirm results on one sample. And these radiometric methods have been in use for about 50 years.

If you want to cling to a hope that these methods will eventually be disproved, go right ahead. But if you are using that hope to support a belief in YEC, you don't just need these methods to be wrong, you need them to be wrong by 6 orders of magnitude.

Wow, must have touched a nerve.

But in the end, what I said was correct, wasnt it?

This is why academics are so loony. They believe that they know everything, when they only know what they know. To some of them, that is one in the same. Those are the guys that beg politicians to dump ash into our atmosphere so that our planet will heat up and avoid another ice age.

Take yourself, for example. Because I laid out a perfectly accurate example of why your example is wrong, you attack me and assume you know what I'm clinging to.

But, you know everything, dont you?

Something being correct doesn't mean it's relevant or at all compelling to those firmly grounded in reality.

So showing how a formula that was thought to be correct for hundreds of years, only to be proven not, is totally irrelevant to anther formula thought to be correct?

Quote: Arguing that one most prove a negative is ludicrous, and a sure sign you have at the most a basic understanding of the scientific process.

Show where I said anyone had to prove a negative. I didnt. I was simply pointing out limitations of an argument. And his arguement is limited by what we know. Only a fool would attempt to use a formula, untested in all scenarios that could be played out over a 100 million years, and say it was a fact.

You can say that radioactive dating says the rock is 100 million years. That does not prove the rock is 100 million years old. That is a conclusion based upon assumptions and our LIMITED knowledge, but it is not a FACT that the rock is 100 million years old. Which is where some of you go down the wrong path. You are confusion facts and conclusions.

Quote:And you didn't explain why anything was wrong, despite thinking you did. Owl is correct, and the great thing about facts is that they aren't overridden by your opinion. Your ignorance does not outweigh his knowledge.

What facts?

Is it my opinion that F<>ma?

Or is that a fact?

You see, my statement is a FACT, because we have proven the equation to be untrue.

Stating as a fact that a rock is 100 million years old because of radioactive decay is incorrect. That is a conclusion, which is limited by what we know. And when you attempt to apply that formula and blindly state its good for the past 100 million or billion years, that is a giant leap in foolishness. You can not know that, so dont pretend you do.

So I'm not asking you or him to prove a negative. I'm simply saying you can not state as a fact something in which you can not prove.

That may cause you much butthurt, but its the truth. It may or may not be true, but you can not state it as a fact.

(02-15-2015 01:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 07:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 06:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 11:44 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 08:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Not true. We know that it breaks down at a constant rate only for the timeframe we have measured it, and under the constants we have performed such measurements.

Sort of like F=ma. For hundreds of years we knew, KNEW, that Force = mass times acceleration.

Until we discovered it wasnt.

But still, today, you can use F=ma and usually be right. Up until you approach the speed of light, when the equation becomes crap.

The only difference between F=ma and your rock dating equation is that we have yet to discover under what circumstances the equation becomes crap.

But rest assured, there are scenarios that will make the equation crap. When you extend the time horizon to millions of years, there are multiple scenarios that could occur to stink it up.

Yeah, you nailed it. Keep asking to prove the negative - I'm sure you'll get there eventually. Look, there isn't just one method for dating rocks and when the conditions warrant, multiple methods are used to confirm results on one sample. And these radiometric methods have been in use for about 50 years.

If you want to cling to a hope that these methods will eventually be disproved, go right ahead. But if you are using that hope to support a belief in YEC, you don't just need these methods to be wrong, you need them to be wrong by 6 orders of magnitude.

Wow, must have touched a nerve.

But in the end, what I said was correct, wasnt it?

This is why academics are so loony. They believe that they know everything, when they only know what they know. To some of them, that is one in the same. Those are the guys that beg politicians to dump ash into our atmosphere so that our planet will heat up and avoid another ice age.

Take yourself, for example. Because I laid out a perfectly accurate example of why your example is wrong, you attack me and assume you know what I'm clinging to.

But, you know everything, dont you?

Something being correct doesn't mean it's relevant or at all compelling to those firmly grounded in reality.

So showing how a formula that was thought to be correct for hundreds of years, only to be proven not, is totally irrelevant to anther formula thought to be correct?

Quote: Arguing that one most prove a negative is ludicrous, and a sure sign you have at the most a basic understanding of the scientific process.

Show where I said anyone had to prove a negative. I didnt. I was simply pointing out limitations of an argument. And his arguement is limited by what we know. Only a fool would attempt to use a formula, untested in all scenarios that could be played out over a 100 million years, and say it was a fact.

You can say that radioactive dating says the rock is 100 million years. That does not prove the rock is 100 million years old. That is a conclusion based upon assumptions and our LIMITED knowledge, but it is not a FACT that the rock is 100 million years old. Which is where some of you go down the wrong path. You are confusion facts and conclusions.

Quote:And you didn't explain why anything was wrong, despite thinking you did. Owl is correct, and the great thing about facts is that they aren't overridden by your opinion. Your ignorance does not outweigh his knowledge.

What facts?

Is it my opinion that F<>ma?

Or is that a fact?

You see, my statement is a FACT, because we have proven the equation to be untrue.

Stating as a fact that a rock is 100 million years old because of radioactive decay is incorrect. That is a conclusion, which is limited by what we know. And when you attempt to apply that formula and blindly state its good for the past 100 million or billion years, that is a giant leap in foolishness. You can not know that, so dont pretend you do.

So I'm not asking you or him to prove a negative. I'm simply saying you can not state as a fact something in which you can not prove.

That may cause you much butthurt, but its the truth. It may or may not be true, but you can not state it as a fact.

Good defense, it'll go over real well with people who don't understand actual science.

(02-16-2015 07:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 01:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 07:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 06:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 11:44 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Yeah, you nailed it. Keep asking to prove the negative - I'm sure you'll get there eventually. Look, there isn't just one method for dating rocks and when the conditions warrant, multiple methods are used to confirm results on one sample. And these radiometric methods have been in use for about 50 years.

If you want to cling to a hope that these methods will eventually be disproved, go right ahead. But if you are using that hope to support a belief in YEC, you don't just need these methods to be wrong, you need them to be wrong by 6 orders of magnitude.

Wow, must have touched a nerve.

But in the end, what I said was correct, wasnt it?

This is why academics are so loony. They believe that they know everything, when they only know what they know. To some of them, that is one in the same. Those are the guys that beg politicians to dump ash into our atmosphere so that our planet will heat up and avoid another ice age.

Take yourself, for example. Because I laid out a perfectly accurate example of why your example is wrong, you attack me and assume you know what I'm clinging to.

But, you know everything, dont you?

Something being correct doesn't mean it's relevant or at all compelling to those firmly grounded in reality.

So showing how a formula that was thought to be correct for hundreds of years, only to be proven not, is totally irrelevant to anther formula thought to be correct?

Quote: Arguing that one most prove a negative is ludicrous, and a sure sign you have at the most a basic understanding of the scientific process.

Show where I said anyone had to prove a negative. I didnt. I was simply pointing out limitations of an argument. And his arguement is limited by what we know. Only a fool would attempt to use a formula, untested in all scenarios that could be played out over a 100 million years, and say it was a fact.

You can say that radioactive dating says the rock is 100 million years. That does not prove the rock is 100 million years old. That is a conclusion based upon assumptions and our LIMITED knowledge, but it is not a FACT that the rock is 100 million years old. Which is where some of you go down the wrong path. You are confusion facts and conclusions.

Quote:And you didn't explain why anything was wrong, despite thinking you did. Owl is correct, and the great thing about facts is that they aren't overridden by your opinion. Your ignorance does not outweigh his knowledge.

What facts?

Is it my opinion that F<>ma?

Or is that a fact?

You see, my statement is a FACT, because we have proven the equation to be untrue.

Stating as a fact that a rock is 100 million years old because of radioactive decay is incorrect. That is a conclusion, which is limited by what we know. And when you attempt to apply that formula and blindly state its good for the past 100 million or billion years, that is a giant leap in foolishness. You can not know that, so dont pretend you do.

So I'm not asking you or him to prove a negative. I'm simply saying you can not state as a fact something in which you can not prove.

That may cause you much butthurt, but its the truth. It may or may not be true, but you can not state it as a fact.

Good defense, it'll go over real well with people who don't understand actual science.

There's those who think they understand science, and there are those who know the limitations of actual science.

If you want to be a scientist, go right ahead. But you are not acting like a scientist. You are acting like an idealogue.

Idealogues jump to a preconceived idea about what someone else believes if that person does not agree with their data.

Idealogues will point out their education background as proof of fact of their idea.

Idealogues will point out another persons background as disproof of their ideas.

And by being an idealogue, you are missing out on real science. It's kind of like why it took so long for people to realize that Louis Pasteur was correct, or that LeMaitre's model that became known as the big bang theory could be correct. The reason some people at the time had a hard time accepting these ideas wasnt because they were scientists, but because they were idealogues. Spontaneous generation could explain that life could begin without God, and Louis Pasteur showed that spontaneous generation did not exist. Yet even after this was scientifically proven, some "scientists" wallowed in their disbelief, because they were idealogues. It's why many had a hard time with the big bang theory. That theory aligned with Genesis, and people htat were idealogues had a problem with that.

Those sure don't sound like the mutterings of a madman.