Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » So are we gonna talk about London? :(

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
So are we gonna talk about London? :(
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

I think you're being a bit willfully ignorant here, Neil. Geological layers are only one of many means of dating a fossil (radioactive dating being the first thing that jumps to mind), and the age of the layers themselves is based on other data such as deposition rates and continent speeds.

Nope. Back in the 1700s they made up dates and ages for the layers out of thin air. It wasn't based on any solid scientific data, but only what they thought. There isn't a scientist around that relies on any other dating method but the layers. As for "radioactive" dating, there's no such thing. And you call me ignorant. Funny. But the various dating methods you probably mean, but are yourself ignorant of how they work are horribly flawed and filled with unproven assumptions. Carbon dating, potassium argon dating and the like, are all based on assumptions which have proven to be false. They always give dates that are all over the place and there isn't a geologist or paleontologist that relies on them.

Here's a quote from an archaeologist...

"I've used carbon-14 dating. Frankly, among archaeologists, carbon dating is a big joke. They send samples to the laboratories to be dated. If it comes back and agrees with the dates they've already decided from the style of pottery, they will say, 'Carbon-14 dating of this sample confirms our conclusions.' But if it doesn't agree, they just think the laboratory has got it wrong, and that's the end of it. It's only a showcase. Archaeologists never (let me emphasize this) never date their finds by carbon-14. They only quote it if it agrees with their conclusions." - David Down, Archaeologist.

You need to do some research of your own as to how they do these things. None of the dating methods work, none. For example, if you do not tell the labs how old you think your sample is, they will not "date" it. Because they're testing doesn't give exact dates, it gives dates all over the place and they try and match the date YOU give them. That's a fact, go find a lab and fill out their online form, you will be asked for a date.

bamccaig said:

I cannot imagine the hoops you have to jump through to conclude that atheism is a religion.

And yet, the courts declared atheism is a religion. A religion by definition is a belief something is true without any empirical scientific or historical evidence to back it up. Evolutionism then by definition, is a religion. You have to believe in it without any proof. Like it or not, tough, this is the fact of the matter.

Anyhow, this has gone wayyyy off topic. I'm going to leave this conversation as my point has been made and endless debates with people who only know how to mock is not my thing. Enjoy.

relpatseht
Member #5,034
September 2004
avatar

My mistake, the correct term is radiometric dating, which, while very imprecise, is rather accurate within the span of time it can be applied (which is based on the half life of the material in question). A labratory will need a base guess for the date in order to determine which method of radiometric dating is most applicable to the sample. That initial guess will be based on other metrics, and the results in turn will be used to make further guesses.
Again, there isn't a true or false here, only internal consistency. No one measure, taken in isolation, is of much value at all. When all measures are internally consistent, the result is added to a list of assumptions, upon which other assumptions can be built. If evidence is added which is internally consistent with the major body of other findings, but rules out a particular assumption, that assumption is discarded.

All that said, I couldn't find any credentials or even a published paper for your source, so I cannot take it as valuable information (unless some is provided).

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

Easy: You google parts of the quote and what first comes up is a website creation.com. Do you need to read any further? Probably not.

It's the age of the Internet. Anyone with enough time and/or money can make a website and put "the truth" out there. Nobody consuming these "truths" is forced to check his beliefs if he doesn't want to.

Look, I once ran into people who told me they need to "twist" water before they drink it. Because that would align the "hexagonal structures". They couldn't tell me more. But they were very certain it would "revitalize" the water. You can find quite some websites who will offer you expensive equipment, in fact ordinary mixers, to do the job. The interesting thing is you can even find a scientist from an American university whose research seems to back such claims. In fact, you can probably find one or two scientists for everything, especially with some money on your hands.
But in order to judge this, you need to "integrate" so to speak, and one outlier doesn't interest you. >:(

An experiment: Take creation.com or comparable websites and recursively follow all links up to some N connections. Now let one group read all these sites. Then compare attitudes to creation with a control group. You can do the same with some jihadi websites. :P

relpatseht
Member #5,034
September 2004
avatar

Polybios said:

Easy: You google parts of the quote and what first comes up is a website creation.com. Do you need to read any further?

You shouldn't discount someones testimony because it doesn't align with your model of the world. Doing the extra research is necessary if you want to be taken seriously.

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

Easy: It's a website explicitly promoting creationist views. No reliable source. Commercials, advertising and propaganda are no credible sources.

Ok, I've taken an extra 30 seconds to google "David Down". Three pages of "creation ... something". Does he exist at all outside these pages? I don't know. I don't care. Research done. Hardly took me a minute. Not credible.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

All that said, I couldn't find any credentials or even a published paper for your source, so I cannot take it as valuable information (unless some is provided).

I doubt that would make a difference in your response.

I had some more things I wished to talk about but, I think I will leave this instead.

Nothing I say or prove will make a difference in these forums.
It's a waste of my time.

In the end, I have proven to myself that what I believe to be absolute fact. And I am the only person I need to convince in this world.

Believe what you wish.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Whatever you opinion is, you gotta admit: I make the best forum threads, folks! ;D

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Bruce Perry
Member #270
April 2000

You were baiting me, and you were just looking for a reason to pick apart my beliefs.

Sorry if you felt that way - shame you didn't tell me at the time.

You seem very sure of it - can you demonstrate it by identifying the point where I "looked for a reason to pick apart" Neil's beliefs, since Neil did reply?

Quote:

I've already stated my reasons for believing what I do multiple times.

Then direct me to one of those posts?

[EDIT]
Yes, I do sometimes challenge you or troll you - but it's when you force your religion on others, or in this thread when your fight seemed so below the belt. I hope I won't ever do that if you merely explain what it means for you.

--
Bruce "entheh" Perry [ Web site | DUMB | Set Up Us The Bomb !!! | Balls ]
Programming should be fun. That's why I hate C and C++.
The brxybrytl has you.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Polybios said:

Ok, I've taken an extra 30 seconds to google "David Down". Three pages of "creation ... something". Does he exist at all outside these pages? I don't know. I don't care. Research done. Hardly took me a minute. Not credible.

You didn't search very long, took me a few seconds to find his published books.

David Down is an archaeologist who happens to believe in creation. He's as qualified to comment as any other archaeologist with the same credentials. It didn't take much searching to find books he authors on the subject. I don't feel his personal beliefs disqualifies him from commenting. He certainly has more of a right to comment on archaeology than anyone in here.

You can find a few of his books on Amazon here. But I am sure you will have some other negative comment because his religion doesn't match your religion therefore anything he says is suddenly not credible.

https://www.amazon.com/David-Down/e/B003QRSW6S

I didn't wish to comment further in this thread, but I do feel I needed to backup my quote that the man is real, he's plenty qualified to comment and a published author.

relpatseht
Member #5,034
September 2004
avatar

Yes, I saw the books, but a book holds no weight on a person's expertise in their field. Anyone can publish a book saying anything they'd like, but it does not make them any more credible as a source. Books, unlike papers published in scientific journals, are not subject to peer review, meaning there is nothing enforcing internal consistency with the larger body of scientific reasoning.

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

I can't find his CV (apart from sparse info on... creationist websites). Anyone can publish books. Besides, lots of people have degrees of some sort, that doesn't automatically make them authorities in their field (we don't even know whether he has some degree).

Not to get distracted by discussing the man's authority, though. I have no issue whatsoever with the guy. Being an archaeologist doesn't protect you from being a creationist.

The important thing is: If you want reliable information about radiometric dating you don't turn to a creationist website. If you want reliable information about the western way of life, you don't go to North-Corean schools. If you want reliable information about Burger King, you don't ask McDonald's press department. See what I mean?
If you have someone outside creationist circles backing up your claim on radiometric dating, you might have an argument. Otherwise, you're most certainly just ruminating propaganda. Which is pretty boring.

Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001

video

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Years of thorough research have revealed that the red "x" that closes a window, really isn't red, but white on red background.

Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

@Bruce
I'll respond to your comments later. First things first.

@Neil

Radiometric dating is science. It's proven. Read a textbook please. ;)

A half life is the time it takes for a given quantity of radio-active material to decay into its next most natural components. That means the quantity left at any given time is (1/2)^N where N is the number of half lives it's gone through.

For an example say we have 10 grams of NeilRoynium and it has a half life of 50 years. T is the amount of time passed (in Years). If we wait 50 years, there will be 5 grams of NR left. Likewise, 100 years, (1/2)(1/2) = 1/4 of 10 grams, which is 2.5 grams. If we know that NR decomposes into something simpler like Potassium, and we find 8.75 grams of potassium alongside 1.25 grams of NR, then we can work backwards to find out how old NR is. If we know that NR = (1/2)^(T/50) and that K = 1 - NR Then K = 1 - [ (1/2)^(T/50) ] and we can solve for T which is the time elapsed since the material started to decay. The formula works out to T = 50*(log_2_[1/(1-K)]). If you do the math, it's 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

These are real geological processes, and there is real science behind them. It's not about faith anymore, it's about empirical evidence. If your faith can't handle science, then I'm afraid you're going to have a hard life.

And no, the Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old. >:(

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

That's something I've never understood about conservative Christians.

Where in the bible does it say the earth is only 6,000 years old? It doesn't. So how are people getting this crap? (Fun fact: The Trinity also isn't actually mentioned anywhere.)

And science has almost nothing to do with religion. They're orthogonal studies. Science is the study of HOW. Religion is the study of WHY.

And evolution (adaption), firstly is not the same as abiogenesis (we came from one-celled mud). Evolution = dogs, and why flu shots have to change every year. Animals with less successful random DNA mutations are ever-so-slightly more likely to die and less likely to reproduce, and ones with more successful random DNA mutations are ever-so-slightly likely to not die, and reproduce. It's not rocket science. You can watch it happen with a simple microscope.

Watch it happen: Bacteria spreads, dies from a low level antibiotic, and then eventually adapts (=bacteria keep reproducing with slight mutations until eventually one mutation can survive in it) and then they hit the next higher concentration of antibiotic and so on.

video

Lastly, abiogenesis, still isn't really a threat. Because since God is all powerful, he can bring about his world however he wants and he is NOT under any obligation to pick a convenient-to-understand method.

Also, the Genesis story actually lines up pretty damn well with our current understanding of the universe. Remember "God created the universe in 7 days."? First off, days could mean "units of time" not "24 days before the sun even existed." Secondly, days can still mean days but there's no need for those days to be RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. It could be seven DISTINCT days, millions of years apart. And the Genesis story COULD also still line up with the Big Bang Theory. "God created light = boom."

The list goes on.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001

Chris, that's trying to twist the Bible text into something that resembles a scientific truth. And actually there's nohing wrong with that. It is kind of poetry, find new interpretations. The books of the Bible were never written in the way science is written today. That idea just didn't exist at the time it was written. Just because the Bible tells the genesis of Earth, it doesn't mean it should today be read like scientific reports are read today. Everyone, even the most "fundamental" Christian, have to admit they contradict each other, if you read the Bible literally. The Bible contradicts even itself. When scientific reports contradict each other, either one is wrong and has to be corrected. When the Bible contradicts itself, it's poetry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Years of thorough research have revealed that the red "x" that closes a window, really isn't red, but white on red background.

Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001

So are we gonna talk about London? :(

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Years of thorough research have revealed that the red "x" that closes a window, really isn't red, but white on red background.

Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest.

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

Sigh... Of course I don't watch a 70 min video if I'm sure it's just boring propaganda. No one in his right mind and with limited time would do this.
You're having a strain of bad luck with your "scientists". If we search for this man, we can't find a page of a university or research institution where he works but rather some accounts about how he only misrepresents himself as a "doctor". He's also mentioned as a "pastor, explorer, and adventurer".
This is getting boring... Can't you at least find one man whose credibility survives a google search? Come on.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Neil Roy said:

<deleted> read the edit history.

Not to be a dickhead, but such things are against the rules. Post history is not a mechanism for you to say what you want without us being able to discuss it. If you don't want to discuss it then don't say it, and if you redact it then don't draw attention to it. I believe even referencing the contents of history is technically against the rules as ML announced them when he introduced post history.

Niunio
Member #1,975
March 2002
avatar

So much for the original topic...

My fault. Today I'm wondering why I was discussing.

So are we gonna talk about London?

I never visited London. I will someday.

-----------------
Current projects: Allegro.pas | MinGRo

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

The Bible does NOT say the Earth is 6000 years old. It says this Earth age was created at that time. An age is a specific period of time, not its entirety.

II Peter 3 talks exactly about this.

The Promise of the Lord’s Coming

3 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you; in them I am trying to arouse your sincere intention by reminding you 2 that you should remember the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your apostles. 3 First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” 5 They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, 6 through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.

8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.

11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire? 13 But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.

Final Exhortation and Doxology

14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

That passage clearly shows there are three Earth and Heaven ages. It is supported by the rest of the Bible. I'm tired of discussing things people have no knowledge of.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Those passages sure as Hell (heh) make Heaven appear to be some place on Earth. Probably somewhere common folk cannot get to, like a palace or something. It would be amusing if this entire thing was written about men as gods and every time it is said that a person talked to god or talked to angels it was actually a king or one of his servants sending a message or something.

Fast-forward 2000 years and millions of people talk to themselves, imaging some omnipotent being in a mysterious magical land outside of this universe, believing in it with all of their being, all because ancient people wrote highly of their wealthy and powerful rulers. Could it be?! :D

Niunio
Member #1,975
March 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

Could it be?!

Are you talking about ancient Egypt and Greece? ::)

-----------------
Current projects: Allegro.pas | MinGRo

Dizzy Egg
Member #10,824
March 2009
avatar

@bamccaig ;D

----------------------------------------------------
Please check out my songs:
https://soundcloud.com/dont-rob-the-machina

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Quote:

Not to be a , but such things are against the rules.

Well, until there is a way to delete a message, I have no choice but to replace what I posted with something else. But I didn't want to hide the fact that I posted something, just make it obvious I am getting out of this thread.

From now on I will avoid religious threads like the plague. Everyone's views are too hard coded to make it worth while discussing. Especially when people always seem to resort to insults and belittling people for their views.

I'll leave this with what I told my atheist father, "We'll all find out the truth in the end. If I'm wrong, I would have lived my life being the best man I know how and will never know otherwise. But if I am right..."

Have a good one. No hard feelings. I'll just stick to programming and humour in these forums I think.

Besides, this is supposed to be about London. ;)



Go to: