Wednesday, September 14, 2011

If we are going to move on.

So I have read everything you wrote. Every last word. I don't even know what to make of it.

Gus-

 I don't need you trailing around, and making excuses how science is a business and you won't be published.

I need you to familiarize yourself with what we are talking about. Because, simply put, you don't get it.

You say claim that there are these holes, that the 'real' evidence is falling through this. You claim that RID is faulty- yet you cannot show why. You have anecdotes. Give me your numbers.

You start making accusations and going on tangents because you don't know the material. If you were to take a test on any of this, you'd get a big fat F. And that isn't because there is some conspiracy- it is because you didn't do your homework.

My obsession with Ph.D's? With experts? I don't really have one; I just like to point you in the direction where the foremost knowledgeable people in the field are and what they have to say. This is the wonderful thing about science- something that your religion can never do; an amateur can enter the arena with the hard facts and sound research and over turn the field. Literally.

Why haven't Ken Ham or Kent Hovind done this? Is it because of a conspiracy? Or is it because they don't do their homework? Why doesn't the Discovery Institute do actual research?

My obsession with peer-reviewed work? This is what is accepted as science. This isn't just some people saying "Hey, lets print out what we have to say and sell it or distribute it on the street." This is people going through a rigorous process of having their worked checked by other experts. These colleagues shoot holes and pick flaws in everything from data to methodology. This isn't just a few people self publishing. This is science.

So when I ask you to publish this knowledge that only you seem to have, I am being a smart-ass. It serves the purpose of calling your bluff.

In conclusion, I don't want to engage with you if you don't know the subject. Don't pretend. I will give it to you- study it. Then come back with something thought-out to say. Not just rhetoric and talking points that your pastor gives you. I want thoughtful criticism.

We'll start with this single link. It is one of the best resources on the web to date. It looks like it was created in the stone age- because it was forged when the internet was still new. It cites everything it claims, so you too can look at the research done behind it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

I really won't respond to you unless you put forth something thoughtful. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but in reality, I have no good reason to share my time with you if you won't be intellectually honest with me and anyone who reads this. I am giving you a level playing field and you are digging holes in it.

14 comments:

  1. Okay..I broke down the equation last time..Im starting to think YOU dont get it so ill explain it one last time.. RID uses a decay constant for whatever isotope they want to measure (HALF LIFE)..It also uses an 'atmospheric average variable' to measure how fast it has been decaying on AVERAGE. Then it utilizes the geologic column to give it an 'in the ballpark' idea of how much of an isotope the sample COULD HAVE HAD when it died. With some backtracking they can determine a relative carbon (or whatever radioactive element is in it) count it had when it died..THEN the machine calculates it, it does the math with an equation similar to this: D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1) (got this one from wiki since i honestly dont care to do extensive digging for your pleasure) the problem with this equation is t. T is age. what age? The RELATIVE AGE OF THE ISOTOPE. Ugh youre so religious about this and you dont even realize it! DEBATE ME IF YOU THINK IM WRONG. "Youre stupid" doesnt make you right...It makes you childish.

    "I dont even know what to make of it"-- get over it!

    Who cares if its a business or not? Its my interpretation. either way, PEOPLE WONT ACCEPT IT. WHY? why do they not accept non-Mormon teachings in parts of Utah! because no one wants to hear it! Not one of them wants to hear about how their beliefs are contradictory to the bible itself. In the same way no one wanted to hear capticalist teachings in Soviet Russia! NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT WOULD DEFEAT WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN. Doesnt matter if its right or not. You need to get off this majority/title thing. The Kings and the Pope of Christopher Columbus' time had big scholarly degrees saying they KNEW the earth was flat and im sure they had volumes of 'peer-reviewed articles' that made the flat earth theory 'accepted science'. Sigh* I feel like im talking to a wall. Do you actually read what i say lol?

    Oh. im bluffing? okay. sure. whatever helps you sleep @ night sir.

    These arguments are only stated by Kent Hovind because they are VALID ARGUMENTS against your silly theories.

    We can all be religious, but you have yet to argue back anything Ive said before. Dont just hand me a victory like that -___- youre better than this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ugh. Dude. Science and religion are two different things. How are they different? Dogma. Dogma defines religion. In science even if you don't like what you hear, you are forced to listen if the speaker has the data to back it up.

    You are right, I don't like what I hear from you. But guess what? I really don't have to listen- you have yet to provide any shred of support for yourself.

    I have been debating you, and I have been listening to you, really. I wouldn't put in the time to this otherwise. I gave you a wealth of knowledge that thoroughly dismantles what you are saying. It completely addresses you, and it lists sources- citations. This is credible evidence contrary to your claims. You do not provide credible evidence for what you are saying. Do you see how this works?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Data doesnt mean much if you're wrong. I can present data all day about how the earth is flat.It does not mean its right, But if you insist on numbers:

    D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1) --> what does it mean?

    t=age
    D= Daughter isotope. Number of atoms present
    D(sub 0) is number of atoms of the D iso of the original comp..
    N= number of atoms in the parent isotope at the present time which is (t)...represented by N(t) = N(log--> variable btw))o(of)e-λt
    That wierd thing λ which is a metric measure of volume = decay constant.

    Lets solve a problem since you havent seen it yet. Ill use the one I found since he got it right.
    This site say a fossil is found that has 35% carbon 14 compared to the living sample. How old is the fossil?
    We can use a formula for carbon 14 dating to find the answer.

    t=[ln(n/n(sub)0)/(-.0693)

    Where t1/2 is the half-life of the isotope carbon 14, t is the age of the fossil (or the date of death) and ln() is the natural logarithm function. If the fossil has 35% of its carbon 14 still, then we can substitute values into our equation.

    t=[ln(35/100)/(-.0693) x 5730(half life)
    =(1.5149)(5730)
    =8680
    So, the fossil is 8,680 years old, meaning the living organism died 8,680 years ago. So why is this wrong? Lets look at what the variables mean again. N is the number of carbon that was given to the organism when it died...Hm, how did you measure that? This IS THE PROBLEM with RID. N relies on (t) or time. What time? arent we trying to figure out how old it is D? The time assigned from the GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE. HMMM. I hope this is dawning on you now. It just doesnt make sense to use time its been dead to find the age of it. Paradoxical if you ask me...Because like i said it relies on CIRCULAR REASONING. the fossils determine the age of the layers in the earth, and the isotopes in the earth determine the age of the fossil. Sigh* and we call this SCIENCE (tm). smh.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And finally since you love hearing it from big experts with bowties on, here are some more bullet holes that RID has..Because the flaw in the equation isnt RID's only problem according to this guy.

    http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

    Ill link you to Kent Hovind vids all day if youd like to argue with the videos as well.

    http://www.drdino.com/seminar-part-1-the-age-of-the-earth/

    http://www.drdino.com/dinosaurs-and-the-bible-seminar-part-3/

    And heres more if you still dont agree

    http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-fatal-flaw

    This (thanks) site exposes EVERY form of Isotope dating. Doesnt really matter tho, they all have the same flaw.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ooh! So congratulations, you have now also stumped an engineer as well. I'll admit, I thought you were originally saying there was flaw to be found with constancy of isotopic decay. As in the whole reason you claimed it to be circular was because we couldn't really pin the constant decay. I'll admit I had you wrong. What you are saying, is the reason it is circular is because the decay equation references geo. time which in turn is dated through decay?

    Please tell me this is what you are saying.*Crosses fingers*

    ReplyDelete
  6. Edit: *Through that same decay equation?

    ReplyDelete
  7. N cannot scientifically lean on (t) because (t) is TIME. what time? Where did you find this time!? (better question is who wasted their time with this...but Ill leave that one for the imagination) Answer is: No one found the time. Its MADE UP. Aren't we trying to find the age it started decaying? so why is TIME DECAYING in this equation to find out when it died?? Its saying "I think its this old so..given the half life (and to be honest i question how they found the half life sometimes as well) of this objects chemical composition...I think its this old.." See how I (THEY) did that? Its CIRCULAR REASONING. I dont know how to break this down anymore to you. We can get on evolution more later and old earth theory. But I hope this has enlightened you better on the flaws in RID and why it should be done away with. I could care less if its accepted science or if my pastor taught the earth was billions of years old. THIS is not the way to do it. nor is the geologic time scale. So this old earth theory needs to get canned.

    And the reason I dont care to publish is because eventually I forsee someone going "Youre an undergrad student? Where's your Ph.D? Im better than you!" This happens all the time and all throughout history and there have been hundereds of other 'publishing' this before me. Its just not accepted, not because 'the great science god says otherwise' but because people dont want to hear it. just like capitalist teachings would never get published in North Korea, no one wants to hear about how capitalism is better. The majority opinion think the earth is old and theres frankly nothing I can do to force people to see otherwise. But hopefully Ill get you to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. YES!!!!!!! The geo time scale is refrenced to give an age to the equation. It leans on that assumption the specimen is x years old, then dates it to be that old. The numbers should make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. you cannot get (t) from N because you are already trying to find out when N DIED. (t) is the variable that assumes WHEN N DIED. Do you see the problem with this?

    "Oh scientists can just backtrack and find out the total isotope (N) it had when ([t]) it died"

    ok..when then?? The total amount of an iso N, is completely dependant on how long it has been deaying t. What if it turns out the earth is trillions of years old and it had actually been decaying for longer? Then it throws the results off. It needs an 'in the ballpark' time estimate to determine how long its been decaying. Hm, ironic.


    And Im not even questioning the decay formulas or the half life. Were assuming even those are correct! (and decay formulas can be easily contaminated in most situations!) But Im assuming they are 100% correct.

    And im honestly not trying to stump you! Im just trying to stimulate your brain! Ask HOW these people got these equations! not just say "oh..they taught it..okay.. must be right.." NO! I have such a problem with that. Anyways hope you reply back soon. im anxious to hear what you have to say

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey I am undergrad and have co authored 2 papers! Never say never! But anyway, I am sorry for misunderstanding you- I really didn't think you were taking this route. And before I move on, I want to thank you for critically engaging! This is the exciting part!

    Before moving on: This argument- this area of knowledge- is the shit. As always, this will be the next post. I just... I just hate writing long things in this text box. Hey, you should start a blog too! We can have start having blog wars!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Damn, there is a posting lag from my phone. I also read what you wrote from my last post- and I will include that in my next blog which (hopefully) I will get to this evening. Can't do this at work, sadly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. fuck me religious people are arrogant muppets.

    mike you're being very restrained - are you just glad of any interest in your blog even if it's from a retard? explaining basic things to someone simply not capable of following a simple logical trail of thought away from their position is not something i would waste my time with.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Res Cognitians.
    Don't get mad lol..No one has done anything to you...
    Explain how I havent been logical thus far. Everything Ive been talking about has total relativity to me trying to disprove old earth theory and evolution. And all you have to bring to the table is that im a retard? Mmh. Id be glad to debate you too.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Mike LOL. I have one, but I made it only for this here. And then i lost the password D:< i give up on creating accounts...

    But Id like to apologize at the same time for being cloudy on any explanation I may have made so far. I want to do this in the clearest and most concise of terms...And I seem to not always be doing such so far. SO! Im glad to be arguing on terms we can agree with. I was a little hesitant about citing before (Like i said before I tend to question everything) but ill most certainly do such in the future. Cant wait for the next post :D

    ReplyDelete