Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@spendius,

Quote:

At least they were alive. You're like a recorded, mechanically generated, message from the sponsors. A speaking clock that nobody could be arsed putting right.

You appear to have missed the point in the comparison.

Both dinosaurs and you do not know how to use Google.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

I use Google very often. I said that it isn't much use for finding out what "all the people here", "incessant rambling" and "clealy see" means.

And it isn't. You might use it to see what subjectivity means. Which is, of course, anti-science and your ready use of subjective expressions, such as those three, demonstrates, clearly, objectively and unequivocally, that you are anti-scientific and that you are using science to justify your emotional outbursts and to lead us astray.

The word "dinosaur" is a taxonomists expression and has no meaning for a proper evolutionist.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I use Google very often. I said that it isn't much use for finding out what "all the people here", "incessant rambling" and "clealy see" means.

And it isn't. You might use it to see what subjectivity means. Which is, of course, anti-science and your ready use of subjective expressions, such as those three, demonstrates, clearly, objectively and unequivocally, that you are anti-scientific and that you are using science to justify your emotional outbursts and to lead us astray.

The word "dinosaur" is a taxonomists expression and has no meaning for a proper evolutionist.

Let me help you really quickly:

incessant: (of something regarded as unpleasant) continuing without pause or interruption.

rambling: of writing or speech) lengthy and confused or inconsequential.

Now there should be no more confusion as to what those two words mean. Anything else I need to hold your hand with?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

As far as New Genes appearing within genomes heres a paper n the subject.

O.K., you are abviously super-expert in genetics (as well, besides in geology) ... and can prove everything with some reference to a paper or a book.
1. The very fact that some information is distributed in several places (rather than being in one) does not change the issue about its probability to appear ... out of nothing.
2. I am not sure whether missing information in some species (earth worms for example) can lead to the appearance of new species (humans or whatever).
So and so you are great in genetics, why don't you tell us something about the 'rocks of the right type' ... the radiocarbon dating for example.
You have magma from fresh volcano eruption ... and you take a sample.
How old is the rock from the sample ... on the grounds of the reading of the radiocarbon dating?

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

Quote:

Let me help you really quickly:

incessant: (of something regarded as unpleasant) continuing without pause or interruption.

rambling: of writing or speech) lengthy and confused or inconsequential.

Now there should be no more confusion as to what those two words mean. Anything else I need to hold your hand with?

That you think that those definitions are of some help suggests to me that you need more than your hand holding. You need somebody to turn the light on.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I have trouble understanding you when you rail on so.
Your last sentence was a question about doing "radiocarbon dating of fresh magma from an erupting volcano?"

1 We don't do radio"carbon dating" on fresh magma because we don't know the bulk chemistry right away. WHAT IF THERES NO CARBON?

2 radiocarbon is usually reserved for organic or carbonate specimens not volcanics

3 In order to date a fresh volcano, Id prefer a CAMERA in order to take its picture. Then Id print out the photo and write the date on the back of the picture (Lot less work)

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

1. The very fact that some information is distributed in several places (rather than being in one) does not change the issue about its probability to appear ... out of nothing.

That's true and the internet is proof of that. The very fact that a lot of people repeat the same arguments you are making doesn't make your argument probable or possible.

In the case of science however many people do the same observations or experiments independent of each other so they are not simply distributing the same info in many places. They are double checking the work of others by repeating it to see if they get the same results.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

WHAT IF THERES NO CARBON?

Good question. How can volanoes emit CO2 ... if there's no carbon?
Just take a fresh volcano sample and make the beta carbon or the AMS ... and tell us what is the reading there.

1 Reply

@Herald,

are you suggesting we sample the off gases for C14?? isn't that a bit, uhhh... stupid?, when we could stand there with a Nikon and take pictures of the volcano going off? C14 needs specific "cleanups" to even use the methodology and a gas with H2S will screw up the analyses . ANYHOW, I could just as easily have a newspaper with the date showing in the photo for evidence)

When C14 is used as an analyte from flue gases or smoke, we usually do this to determine RATIOS of isotopes C12/C13?C14 rather than doing isotope dating.

Think of Occams razor

3 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

That you think that those definitions are of some help suggests to me that you need more than your hand holding. You need somebody to turn the light on.

That you weren't able to figure them out yourself suggests that you are a lot dumber than you look.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Think of Occams razor

I am thinking:
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the more simple one."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be the correct one."
"Keep things simple!"
"Nature operates in the shortest possible way."
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
...
In connection with this why don't you simply take some magma samples from Iceland or Hawaii (that contain carbon) and date the solidified magma by carbon dating ... to see how old the newly formed rock will turn out ... and what you are actually dating?

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

It's true for explaining women. Women say its true for explaining men.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Still avoiding the eugenics question with more woffle fm.

You would do well to think of Occam instead of instructing us to.

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

I know when something means nothing and your definitions mean nothing.

Even fm will explain that for you.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

It struck me, fm, that according to Darwin man would have eventually emerged from evolution and thus God, having plenty of time, and our earth's life being but a lightning flash, could easily have afforded to wait the 200, or so, billion years before a monkey could say " whaddya doin' after the show Babe".

Thus, it seems to me, that God simply wished to exercise his creativity anew and so must have created Man. Had he waited for it to happen naturally Man would not be here yet.

As Man is here it must mean God exists unless you explain the sudden manifestation of monkey into man. It it was sudden in terms of the time-scales. 2 billion in 3.8 billion is hardly going to register on the clock.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Not that most of the 2 million years offered any great changes. It's only the last three thousand years that marks a significant change.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

simply take some magma samples from Iceland or Hawaii (that contain carbon) and date the solidified magma by carbon dating ...

I repeat my question. Why are you CERTAIN that there even is carbon in the magma? Every magma is different and there are many many types and chemistries out there.
We have much more accurate techniques to study and date magmas that overlie each other . Some don't even involve isotopic analyses.
(I guess youre getting at the trick that some Creationists did in trying to "date" a fresh mgma by K/Ar and finding out that it was 2 million years old. The reason that happened is because the samplers hd no idea what they were doing and didn't take any reference samples to see whether there were any "older" minerals mixed in the melt (After all, magmas are often just re-"cycled" masses of former rocks and could often appear older than they are..
If you have a point that you wish to make, please make it and then let me comment on it. Youre so caught up on "carbon dating" that Im not sure you even have an idea of what its about.

Still, if I were sampling new lavas I would first use a camera and a stratigraphic sequence that tells me the age by whats "destroyed"

Mt St Helens can be dated (inaccurately, ) by using isotopic means, but the errors introduced by "mixed" rocks means that somebody is wasting project money.
When dating eruptions or floods or glaciers or even earthquakes, the best "dating" techniques for recent events is to search and see (for the unique layer of detritus that relates to the event) whether anything like trees, , soil layers, cultural deposits or buildings, or any erosion surface , is affected by the event.
It IS like having a camera that identifies the natural or man-made item that was clearly destroyed or marked by the event.

We normally try to use the simplest and most easily interpreted VALIID technique in geochronology.

Your deeply in my court and your sounding silly by demanding Carbon 14 methods be employed where they may not even be valid or necessary.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

2 billion in 3.8 billion is hardly going to register on the clock.

Read 2 million.

0 Replies

@Herald,

See here Herald--why do you keep helping fm to escape the main issues? Can't you see that he's in his element answering your posts.

On eugenics he has not the nerve to follow his own convictions to their logical conclusion. He is just helping to pave the way for those who have.

And if you continue to eagerly climb up onto the coconut shy for him to knock off you are on the same side as he is.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Why are you CERTAIN that there even is carbon in the magma?

... because those two erupt magma directly from the mid-ocean ridge ... that has carbon for sure.
Do you have the samples or you are going to make a Ph.D. thesis of the theme: Phylosophical Issues of the Rocks ... & Volcanoes

farmerman wrote:

We have much more accurate techniques to study and date magmas

No, I am not asking about the other techniques. Just tell us how old is the fresh magma according to the carbon dating techniques. A number (without any other comments) would be O.K.

3 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know