Page 87 of 89 FirstFirst ... 3777868788 ... LastLast
Results 3,011 to 3,045 of 3090

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #3011
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    re criticism of Snelling .....

    I'll bet all you Heliocentrists reject and even despise the Geocentrists as ignorant, unscientific primatives out of touch with reality.

    - yet you casually describe the sun "coming up " and "going down " - Hypocrits!

    Again, who hasn't read 1984? Remember the "Ministry of (Dis)Information" ?

    What do you make of Simonyi endowing a Professorship at Oxford for "The Public Understanding of Evolutionism" - and specifying Dorkins as its first incumbent? (and make no mistake about the "Religious" component of the role - for he described it as A Devil's Chaplain) Also note D's strong commitment to not debate with his scientific opponents - even going so far as to urge that they be "denied oxygen".

    Paid Shill indeed!
    Frank, you cannot even get that right.
    Aims

    The aim of the Simonyi Professorship is to contribute to the understanding of science by the public. The chair is intended to be filled by a scientist of distinction in their field of expertise, and the Simonyi Professor may hold the post while also pursuing their scientific work. Just as important as scientific accolade is that he or she has a talent and interest in communicating science to a wide audience.
    Primary goals

    The task of communicating science to the layman is not a simple one. In particular it is imperative for the post holder to avoid oversimplifying ideas, and presenting exaggerated claims. The limits of current scientific knowledge should always be made clear to the public. Once done so, however, there is also a role for presenting speculative ideas, which can convey to non-scientists some of the excitement of doing true science.
    Responsibilities

    Because of the importance of communicating with as wide an audience as possible, the Simonyi Professor is not expected to undertake substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University: any such efforts should be directed primarily towards the education of non-specialists. The Professor should communicate scientific ideas through a variety of media, in order to reach a wide range of people. These include, but are not limited to, public lectures, writing articles and books, and television and radio appearances. The Professor’s role in disseminating scientific knowledge is also expected to involve travel from Oxford to other cities and countries.
    https://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/about-marcus/the-oxford-simonyi-professor-for-the-public-understanding-of-science/

    https://web.archive.org/web/20080423...ms/index.shtml
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080423...anifesto.shtml
    I'll assume that some one else has mislead you and that you did not bother to check your facts.
    Last edited by Peerie Maa; 01-11-2018 at 02:08 PM.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  2. #3012
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    694

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by paulf View Post
    As others here I also am Agnostic. The sheer expanse of time and universal space is almost incomprehensible to me. I just don't have the answers. However some of the light reaching us today from "out there" Took literally millions of years to get here some much longer.(https://www.space.com/18502-farthest...le-photos.html).

    I don't think Frank going to change his mind for anything I will say. To reason/discuss further is pointless, I'm fairly stuck in my beliefs as well.

    Frank, have a great day, enjoy!
    Thanks Paul,

    "The sheer expanse of time and universal space is almost incomprehensible to me."

    - sounds like you have had some kind of religious epiphany, Paul ......

    "However some of the light reaching us today from "out there" Took literally millions of years to get here some much longer"

    - are you aware that there are Cosmologists who, unsatisified with the standard model which requires a "Dark" fudge-factor twenty times greater than the amount of known reality, are developing alternate cosmological models which incidentally allow different parts of the universe to have different "ages"? (even 6000y.o. bits within the 14Bigayear whole !)

    Professor Camelli of Israel (now deceased) was the one to get the ball rolling (though he was not a creationist).
    There is our own Professor John Hartnett and also Dr. Russell Humphreys who have weighed in. There may be others. "Starlight and Time" is one book I recall.

    best regards,

    Frank

  3. #3013
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    694

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    Attachment 8797
    Somebody, please, explain this, if not layers deposited over time? This couldn’t have all happened at one time, could, it?
    ......
    .
    Hi Robert,

    I remember tackling a christian once, about the fossils, and he said ,"Oh, God put them there in the rocks..."
    Well, I reckon he could've - He can do anything right? - but it didn't gel with me for an explanation ....

    Similarly, He could've gone "Poof" and created a universe .... but He (or She/it - your pick) could've taken as long as .... a week, a fewbillion years whatever ...

    but looking at your rock with its layers and depending which way up you hold it as to which is the younger end of the rock, top or bottom, I would guess that there is an older face - but I think your question istrying to understand how much earlier or later - and I cant see any date stamps anywhere ....

    - and those white lines - are they intrusions - or precipitations or what - and there are some that branch and rejoin .... ???



    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    Attachment 8800
    Also, where does petrified wood fall in the Young Earth deal? Seriously.
    I remember reading of a Station Hand (US - Rancher) in western Queensland where it was mostly dry, but flooded some years. this sometimes buried the fences, so they had to build a new one on top - but anyway one time the old fence got exposed again - and he reported that the wooden posts had fossilised - turned to stone! there was even a post part stone and part wood! Now, he remembered putting in that fence 50yrs before (and anyway, since the Abos didn't used to build barbwire fences, it had to be less than 200yrs old).

    btw, there's a bloke out on the Opal fields somewhere where he grows / precipitates genuine Opal, in jam jars, on his shelves, in a matter of months. The CSIRO investigated ..... (But you do your own research - some people here rekon that I tell lies .....)

    humbly,

    frank

  4. #3014
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    47,130

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Such amazing contortions to defend biblical literalism. Is it worth the trouble?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  5. #3015
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    - some people here rekon that I tell lies .....)

    humbly,

    frank
    Got a quote for that? Link to a post?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  6. #3016
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,095

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Hi Robert,

    I remember tackling a christian once, about the fossils, and he said ,"Oh, God put them there in the rocks..."
    Well, I reckon he could've - He can do anything right? - but it didn't gel with me for an explanation ....

    Similarly, He could've gone "Poof" and created a universe .... but He (or She/it - your pick) could've taken as long as .... a week, a fewbillion years whatever ...

    but looking at your rock with its layers and depending which way up you hold it as to which is the younger end of the rock, top or bottom, I would guess that there is an older face - but I think your question istrying to understand how much earlier or later - and I cant see any date stamps anywhere ....

    - and those white lines - are they intrusions - or precipitations or what - and there are some that branch and rejoin .... ???





    I remember reading of a Station Hand (US - Rancher) in western Queensland where it was mostly dry, but flooded some years. this sometimes buried the fences, so they had to build a new one on top - but anyway one time the old fence got exposed again - and he reported that the wooden posts had fossilised - turned to stone! there was even a post part stone and part wood! Now, he remembered putting in that fence 50yrs before (and anyway, since the Abos didn't used to build barbwire fences, it had to be less than 200yrs old).

    btw, there's a bloke out on the Opal fields somewhere where he grows / precipitates genuine Opal, in jam jars, on his shelves, in a matter of months. The CSIRO investigated ..... (But you do your own research - some people here rekon that I tell lies .....)

    humbly,

    frank
    Opal is made up of silica spheres that refract light which is where the colours come from.
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  7. #3017
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    694

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Now this is starting to get irritating; bloody nonsense, in fact. Myself, I identify as agnostic, mainly because I am not afraid to admit I'm only a human being and not very wise about things on that scale, but I'm married to a Unitarian minister and have my more mystical, even theistic moments. I will tell you with all sincerity that accepting the scientific evidence about the age of the universe and the development of living organisms has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in a creator. Religious doctrines and all the holy books ever written were created by human beings. The physical world was not. When we look at the scientific evidence, observations of the physical world, we're reading a message directly from the hand of the creator with no intermediaries. Who the hell are we to tell God what to do? Any God capable of creating a universe can do it any way he pleases, and if it took a Big Bang and 14 billion years and life evolving for billions of years through natural selection to get us here, who are we to quibble? And I tell you, if somebody made all that, they did a pretty impressive job of it.

    The thing is, accepting the physical evidence of the age of the universe does not threaten belief in a creator in the slightest. Most varieties of religion, most varieties of Christianity, even, are perfectly OK with that. The Catholic Church (of which I'm normally not a huge fan) says officially that if accurate observation of the world contradicts the teaching of the faith, well, the faith just has to give; the world is what it is. They have it right. Jews, whose book it was originally, have no problem with the creation stories not being literal. What it does threaten is a narrow, shrunken (and fairly recent) version of faith that depends on the strict literal interpretation of one book, a little god of ignorant people 4000 years ago who knew much less than we do, and who resembles nothing so much as an ill-tempered minor despot. To try to squeeze the history of the universe into one millionth the time it actually took, to reduce billions of years of glorious and astounding complexity into the seven days of a child's fairy tale, is to insult both the creator and his creation, and it resembles nothing so much as squeezing your eyes tight shut, plugging your ears and yelling, 'Nyaaah nyaaah I can't hear you!'

    Sorry for the rant, Frank - you seem a decent guy, and have been quite patient. But I tell you in all sincerity, you're not only making a scientific error, but a moral one. If you want to learn about God's creation, look at what God created, not what somebody a long time ago wrote down.

    Dear Keith,
    First:
    that is a point I would make - the Creator can do (by definition) anything, anyway, anyhow, anywhen ....

    That is ok - as long as you have a Creator, all you have to do then is to figure out the "anything, anyway, anyhow, anywhen" - and science has proved an excellent tool .....

    Problem for the Creator-Denialist tho - how to account for all of reality, hey???

    there seem a few modern myths getting around amongst all us ignoramuses ..
    - it all started (something out of nothing, for no reason, no intelligence allowed) by some kind of Quantum Magic (trust the High Priests!)
    - then it evolved chemically -
    - then life evolved
    - and here we are!

    Deep Time (the great god *DEEP TIME*) is the essential part - given enough time, anything can be accomplished. (a few people have attempted to quantify 'how much time' but generally get sidelined because it usually works out as "more time than is available".
    Even Dawkins suggested when asked (paraphrasing), "Well, if 4billion years isn't enough, the Aliens could have seeded us giving them an extra 10billion years to evolve.")

    Secondly:
    wouldn't you reckon that "squeeze(ing) the history of the universe into one millionth the time it actually took, " would be even more astoundingly bluddi marvellous?

    Thirdly:
    Ah! so we have a reasonable idea of who the scribes might have been - but have you considered the (continually!) emerging evidences as to who the author was?
    -

  8. #3018
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    694

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Got a quote for that? Link to a post?
    why would you believe anything I give you then?

  9. #3019
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    694

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Such amazing contortions to defend biblical literalism. Is it worth the trouble?
    why / why not?

  10. #3020
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    Opal is made up of silica spheres that refract light which is where the colours come from.
    Apparently Jim Zachery worked out how to make the uniform size silica spheres that make up opal, and now makes Stirling Opal, looks like a good substitute for the real thing.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  11. #3021
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    why would you believe anything I give you then?
    Try me.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  12. #3022
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    47,130

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    why / why not?
    You tell me, Frank. I'm not the one arguing for biblical literalism. You are not defending belief in a creator, for God has no need to do things according to our specifications. You are not defending Christianity, for most varieties of Christianity have no problem at all with the idea that the old creation stories aren't literal accounts, and the universe is 14-odd billion years old, as the scientific evidence shows. As far as I can tell, you're defending one narrow variety of Christianity, a fairly recent one, in fact.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  13. #3023
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,095

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Apparently Jim Zachery worked out how to make the uniform size silica spheres that make up opal, and now makes Stirling Opal, looks like a good substitute for the real thing.
    I had a go at opal mining on an uncles claim, it’s hard work. Finding opal is a bit look looking for a pin on football field from under the ground. The synthetic looks quite good.
    this may have been the basis of the flood myth.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blac...uge_hypothesis
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  14. #3024
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    47,130

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    And one might ask why an allegedly benevolent deity would go kill everybody in the first place, but expecting myths to make sense is probably fruitless. Yahweh had a pretty short fuse, you believe the stores.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  15. #3025
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    I had a go at opal mining on an uncles claim, it’s hard work. Finding opal is a bit look looking for a pin on football field from under the ground. The synthetic looks quite good.
    this may have been the basis of the flood myth.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blac...uge_hypothesis
    I think that is quite likely. Of course the displaced people could just walk away from that one, no Arks were harmed in making their escape. The other stories that may have been absorbed into the Old Testament are the Gilgamesh myth and this one
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  16. #3026
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,095

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I did wonder if the flooding of the Mediterranean might have been origin but at 5.5 million years it would be a bit of a long bow.
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  17. #3027
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    I did wonder if the flooding of the Mediterranean might have been origin but at 5.5 million years it would be a bit of a long bow.
    There is also this: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ws.archaeology
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  18. #3028
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,095

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    And 9,000 years ago there was this.
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...tralian-island
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  19. #3029
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    And 9,000 years ago there was this.
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...tralian-island
    “Around 8,000 years ago, it would have been on the coast,” McDonald told Guardian Australia. “This is the time that the islands were starting to be cut off and it’s a time when people were starting to rearrange themselves.”
    The sea level on Australia’s north-west coast rose 130 metres after the end of the ice age, at a rate of about a metre every five to 10 years. “In people’s lifetimes they would have seen loss of territory and would have had to renegotiate – a bit like Miami these days,” McDonald said.
    Made me think of Dogger Land
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  20. #3030
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    some people here rekon that I tell lies .....)

    humbly,

    frank
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Got a quote for that? Link to a post?
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    why would you believe anything I give you then?
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Try me.
    Let us put this to bed shall we.
    Frank you did not provide a link or quote a post because you know that nobody called you out for telling lies. Yes?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  21. #3031
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wow-Ming
    Posts
    16,494

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    CREATIONLAND. A Super-Lative, Educational Experience, such as you have never witnessed!














    We're merely mammals. Let's misbehave! —Cole Porter

  22. #3032
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cows
    Posts
    550

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Dorkins as its first incumbent?
    Dorkins? Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Also note D's strong commitment to not debate with his scientific opponents - even going so far as to urge that they be "denied oxygen".
    There is good reason to not debate them. It lends credibility where there is none. There is also a name for it, the "split-screen" effect; if you have two men up on stage, there is a sense that they have equal credibility, when in reality there is no credibility on Snelling's half of the stage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Paid Shill indeed!
    False equivalence. To change the subject from Snelling to Dawkins is ridiculous.

    You haven't even clicked on the links debunking Snelling, yet you expect us to read him.
    bccphalarope(dot)com

  23. #3033
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    694

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Let us put this to bed shall we.
    Frank you did not provide a link or quote a post because you know that nobody called you out for telling lies. Yes?
    Nick - I have sent you a PM.

  24. #3034
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Nick - I have sent you a PM.
    Not arrived yet, it's a long way from Aus.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  25. #3035
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    694

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I understand that it is not usual - but occasionally , using different Radiometric daiting on the same rock does give different ages.

    One study using Potassium ,rubidium ,uranium and neodymium decay sequences gave significantly (by up to a factor of 3x !) different results on one rock tested.

    It was found that discordant dates were measured also in three overlying layers.

    further analysis revealed that, though the measurements were inconsistent there was a consistent pattern - in fact several!

    - for any one method, a lower layer always gave an older age than a higher one

    - for any one layer, the resultant ages were always in the same order.

    because of the consistent patterns, a random or other error was ruled out - it was accepted that the ages accurately reflected the method used.

    One possibility to account for all this was that a "period" of accelerated radioactive decay was experienced though this explanation would not be accepted by many.

    Further research was called for.


    Now I have posted this in response to those who (like myself) prefer results in the real world of reality....

    I can dig that rock is tested in laboratories with dedicated, trained staff, and conducted according to defined protocols. (and indeed the results, by exhibiting those particular , consistent patterns, bears that out)

    I look forward to a good explanation.

  26. #3036
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    I understand that it is not usual - but occasionally , using different Radiometric daiting on the same rock does give different ages.

    One study using Potassium ,rubidium ,uranium and neodymium decay sequences gave significantly (by up to a factor of 3x !) different results on one rock tested.

    It was found that discordant dates were measured also in three overlying layers.

    further analysis revealed that, though the measurements were inconsistent there was a consistent pattern - in fact several!

    - for any one method, a lower layer always gave an older age than a higher one

    - for any one layer, the resultant ages were always in the same order.

    because of the consistent patterns, a random or other error was ruled out - it was accepted that the ages accurately reflected the method used.

    One possibility to account for all this was that a "period" of accelerated radioactive decay was experienced though this explanation would not be accepted by many.

    Further research was called for.


    Now I have posted this in response to those who (like myself) prefer results in the real world of reality....

    I can dig that rock is tested in laboratories with dedicated, trained staff, and conducted according to defined protocols. (and indeed the results, by exhibiting those particular , consistent patterns, bears that out)

    I look forward to a good explanation.
    A link to the paper would be good, so that we can read it first hand. How else can we be expected to explain it in a vacuum?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  27. #3037
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    18,704

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Cite?
    Someday, I'm going to settle down and be a grumpy old man.

  28. #3038
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    10,496

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Nietzsche


  29. #3039
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wow-Ming
    Posts
    16,494

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post

    - for any one method, a lower layer always gave an older age than a higher one

    - for any one layer, the resultant ages were always in the same order.
    This is wrong. Depositional stratigraphy can be altered by crustal forces, producing zones of folding where the layers are inverted with respect to their original sequence. Here's a simple diagram.




    I live in an area where crustal forces have oriented the stratigraphy pretty near vertical, so the relative position, up or down, does not translate to earlier or later dates.

    Perhaps you should take a course on the subject. Interesting stuff.
    We're merely mammals. Let's misbehave! —Cole Porter

  30. #3040
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    A link to the paper would be good, so that we can read it first hand. How else can we be expected to explain it in a vacuum?
    Frank, is that one of Snellings papers?
    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm
    Thought about post #2967 yet?
    The problem with the Young Earth Creationist view, based on the genealogy of the bible:
    Table 1: Table of Patriarchs

    From Stevens, 2003

    Key
    F: Age of fatherhood L: Length of Life
    B: Birth date (Anno mundi) D: Date of Death (Anno mundi)

    Septuagint Samaritan Masoretic
    Age Year Age Year Age Year
    Patriarch F L B D F L B D F L B D
    Adam 230 930 0 930 130 930 0 930 130 930 0 930
    Seth 205 912 230 1142 105 912 130 1042 105 912 130 1042
    Enosh 190 905 435 1340 90 905 235 1140 90 905 235 1140
    Cainan 170 910 625 1535 70 910 325 1235 70 910 325 1235
    Mahalalel 165 895 795 1690 65 895 395 1290 65 895 395 1290
    Jared 162 962 960 1922 62 847 460 1307 162 962 460 1422
    Enoch 165 365 1122 1487 65 365 522 887 65 365 622 987
    Methuselah 187 969 1287 2256 67 720 587 1307 187 969 687 1656
    Lamech 188 753 1474 2227 53 653 654 1307 182 777 874 1651
    Noah 502 950 1662 2612 502 950 707 1657 502 950 1056 2006
    Flood 2262 1307 1656
    Shem 100 600 2164 2764 100 600 1209 1809 100 600 1558 2158
    Arphachshad 135 615 2264 2879 135 438 1309 1747 35 438 1658 2096
    Cainan 130 460 2399 2859
    Shelah 130 460 2529 2989 130 433 1444 1877 30 433 1693 2126
    Eber 134 504 2659 3163 134 404 1574 1978 34 464 1723 2187
    Peleg 130 339 2793 3132 130 239 1708 1947 30 239 1757 1996
    Reu 132 339 2923 3262 132 239 1838 2077 32 239 1787 2026
    Serug 130 330 3055 3385 130 230 1970 2200 30 230 1819 2049
    Nahor 79 208 3185 3393 79 148 2100 2248 29 148 1849 1997
    Terah 70 205 3264 3469 70 145 2179 2393 70 205 1878 2083
    Abraham 100 175 3334 3509 100 175 2249 2424 100 175 1948 2123
    Isaac 60 180 3434 3614 60 180 2349 2529 60 180 2048 2228
    Jacob 147 3494 3641 147 2409 2556 147 2108 2255




    Is that our bodies stop replacing old cells as we age, so we wear out and die at a maximum age of about 125years. The YEC's argue that germs and diseases had not developed back then to kill us which illustrates an ignorance of genetics. It is our genes that kill us even if we could avoid bugs and viruses. What happens to telomeres as we age?



    • Each time a cell divides, 25-200 bases are lost from the ends of the telomeres on each chromosome.
    • Two main factors contribute to telomere shortening during cell division?:
      • The “end replication problem” during DNA replication: Accounts for the loss of about 20 base pairs? per cell division.
      • Oxidative stress: Accounts for the loss of between 50-100 base pairs per cell division. The amount of oxidative stress in the body is thought to be affected by lifestyle factors such as diet, smoking and stress.

    • When the telomere becomes too short, the chromosome reaches a ‘critical length’ and can no longer be replicated.
    • This ’critical length’ triggers the cell to die by a process called apoptosis?, also known as programmed cell death.




    https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-a-telomere
    So most of that column, "Age at Fatherhood" cannot be correct. Thus the entire edifice falls.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  31. #3041
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,095

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I've come across a fundamentalist creationist on Facebook that Makes Frank seem quite reasonable.
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  32. #3042
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,529

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    One for the biologists.
    Scientists think they have the answer to a puzzle that baffled even Charles Darwin: How flowers evolved and spread to become the dominant plants on Earth.
    Flowering plants, or angiosperms, make up about 90% of all living plant species, including most food crops.
    In the distant past, they outpaced plants such as conifers and ferns, which predate them, but how they did this has has been a mystery.
    New research suggests it is down to genome size - and small is better.
    "It really comes down to a question of cell size and how you can build a small cell and still retain all the attributes that are necessary for life," says Kevin Simonin from San Francisco State University in California, US.

    'Abominable mystery'
    Hundreds of millions of years ago, the Earth was dominated by ferns and conifers. Then, about 150 million years ago, the first flowering plants appeared on the scene.
    They quickly spread to all parts of the world, changing the landscape from muted green to a riot of vibrant colour.
    The reasons behind the incredible success and diversity of flowering plants have been debated for centuries.
    Charles Darwin himself called it an "abominable mystery", fearing this apparent sudden leap might challenge his theory of evolution.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42656306
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  33. #3043
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    47,130

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    One study using Potassium ,rubidium ,uranium and neodymium decay sequences gave significantly (by up to a factor of 3x !) different results on one rock tested.
    Sure. Our methods are imperfect, and sometimes give conflicting results. But you are positing a factor of 1,000,000x.
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 01-14-2018 at 06:41 PM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  34. #3044
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    18,704

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    The classic Potassium/Argon resets on melt (hardly a surprise Argon's a gas) - been known for decades and is commonly accounted for - note the lack of a citation.
    Someday, I'm going to settle down and be a grumpy old man.

  35. #3045
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    694

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    for those enquiring minds ....

    re. discordant dates from different radiometric dating sequences - on the same rock sample:

    T. Oberthür, D. W. Davis, T. G. Blenkinsop, and A. Höhndorf, “Precise U-Pb Mineral Ages, Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd Systematics of the Great Dyke, Zimbabwe—Constraints on Late Archean Events in the Zimbabwe Craton and Limpopo Belt,” Precambrian Research 113:293–305, 2002;

    S. B. Mukasa, A. H. Wilson, and R. W. Carlson, “A Multielement Geochronologic Study of the Great Dyke, Zimbabwe: Significance of the Robust and Reset Ages,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 164:353–369, 1998;

    J. Zhao, and M. T. McCulloch, “Sm-Nd Mineral Isochron Ages of Late Proterozoic Dyke Swarms in Australia: Evidence for Two Distinctive Events of Mafic Magmatism and Crustal Extension,” Chemical Geology 109:341–354, 1993.

    enjoy!

    frank

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •