22 Oct 07
Originally posted by aardvarkhome"With respect to your historical dates on various objects, give me a
Radi carbon dates are calibrated against objects that have a known calender date associated with them. This calibration chronology is old with valid data points going back almost 20 000 years. The error bars associated with radiocarbon dates are small because of this calibration
time line for objects that you know are without a doubt correct and tell
me when you know the dates might have errors in them? "
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoBetween the two of us you are the only one that keeps bringing the
All dates have errors on them. We can know for sure dates are right up to pharaohs times. (5k yrs ago).
That's only ~1000 years less since Adam and Eve went to earth... Do you think in this time they had the time the reproduce like rabbits to fill the world population? I guess not... BTW, when did the flood occur? After this time or before?
And did the d ...[text shortened]... C14 follows that logarithmic line without caring about The Holy Bible (TM) or you.
Bible into this discussion, have you noticed that?
So within 5K you are very sure yet within this time frame you still have
some error bar in play?
Kelly
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI told you, there are no certainties in science. There never were. Everything has an interval of confidence. From Newton laws to dating methods, independent of how old they are.
Between the two of us you are the only one that keeps bringing the
Bible into this discussion, have you noticed that?
So within 5K you are very sure yet within this time frame you still have
some error bar in play?
Kelly
We can measure the degree of certainty with statistics.
I'm sorry to bring the bible, but that's the only place you can rely to tell earth is 6k yrs old.
Now, the degree of certainty for a sample, let's say, 20k yrs old is quite big. Something like 80% chance for ages between 19900 and 20100, 90% chance it's between 19500 and 20500. 99.999% chance it's between 15000 and 25000. (these are examples).
It already takes into account all possible errors and deviations, because thousands of measures have been made, in a continuum of ages, with the right statistical methods.
Saying all this is wrong is tearing apart mathematics, statistics, physics and history.
So, I can say for almost absolute sure things are older then 10k yrs, which is enough to destroy your points of view.
Can't you see the huge amount of flaws and incoherences that come from your perspective of the world? They're just so absurd, I sometimes think you are just joking around.
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't have a belief concerning the time frame of the universe because I'm an English student and I am completely unqualified to have any meaningful belief. So are you, you just don't know that.
Who told you God formed himself out of nothing? I believe that God
always was, is, and always will be. You believe the universe is eternal,
you believe that all the dates applied to it are false or what?
Kelly
I know that if God always was, as you claim (whatever that means), it's easily possible for the Earth to exist as it always has without a creator. Why not? If God can always exist without explanation why can't the earth? Surely a God who created the earth is more complicated than his creation?
Otherwise his creation might have created him and that is impossible right (sarcasm implied)?
If there doesn't have to be a start time for when God existed why does the Earth need one?
I don't think any organized religion is less crazy than scientology, some are just older and more established. But it does make me laugh everytime I see a paper refer to scientology as a "religion" in quotes as if somehow Christianity or Judiasm etc. makes more sense!!
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84For whomever might read this post: Science and Scientology are NOT whatsoever related, except for the 5 first letters.
I don't have a belief concerning the time frame of the universe because I'm an English student and I am completely unqualified to have any meaningful belief. So are you, you just don't know that.
I know that if God always was, as you claim (whatever that means), it's easily possible for the Earth to exist as it always has without a creator. Why not? ...[text shortened]... as a "religion" in quotes as if somehow Christianity or Judiasm etc. makes more sense!!
Science surely doesn't support any religious claims, although the inverse is common practice, when religious guys try to take advantage of some scientific claims for their own agenda.
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84Wait . . . are you saying that the Earth may always have existed? Do you mean the universe?
I don't have a belief concerning the time frame of the universe because I'm an English student and I am completely unqualified to have any meaningful belief. So are you, you just don't know that.
I know that if God always was, as you claim (whatever that means), it's easily possible for the Earth to exist as it always has without a creator. Why not? ...[text shortened]... as a "religion" in quotes as if somehow Christianity or Judiasm etc. makes more sense!!
Also are you implying that you are a scientologist? Please don't be offended by the question. Then again, who wouldn't be, right? 🙂
23 Oct 07
==============================
I know that if God always was, as you claim (whatever that means), it's easily possible for the Earth to exist as it always has without a creator. Why not? If God can always exist without explanation why can't the earth? Surely a God who created the earth is more complicated than his creation?
==========================
Hey, you're not doing too bad for someone who is "not qualfied to have any meaningful belief." Aren't you ?
23 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayDo a bit of research and then see if you can knock me down. I'm tired of your laziness.
"With respect to your historical dates on various objects, give me a
time line for objects that you know are without a doubt correct and tell
me when you know the dates might have errors in them? "
23 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJaythat is a very silly reply. Please show your 'opponenets' a little more respect.
Between the two of us you are the only one that keeps bringing the
Bible into this discussion, have you noticed that?
So within 5K you are very sure yet within this time frame you still have
some error bar in play?
Kelly
The error is a fraction of 5k rather than 5k as you well know. you are being deliberatley disingenious.
30 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoI'll check my copy. I'm now the proud owner of the family edition. Y Beibl, published in 1876 is a Welsh language version and has been annotated with every birth marriage and death in the family since 1878
Trying to refute statistics, maybe. Do you know how hard it is to find quotes from the Bible against statistics??
30 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoHave not left, my point has been you cannot weight data you do not
Trying to refute statistics, maybe. Do you know how hard it is to find quotes from the Bible against statistics??
have or properly weight data you are getting wrong if you do not know
it is wrong. There isn't much of a point to keep going at it since it
seems you know all there is, nothing has been missed one way or
another. Your methods are flawless I guess, cannot argue with flawless
methods.
Kelly
30 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayActually that is exactly what the whole discussion was about. Statistical methods are precisely that: weighting data that you do not know the validity of. When enough data points in one direction, it is statistically improbable that it is wrong even though you may never know whether it is or isn't wrong.
Have not left, my point has been you cannot weight data you do not
have or properly weight data you are getting wrong if you do not know
it is wrong.
For example:
I wish to measure the depth of a lake. I have no means to get to the bottom myself and thus have not personally witnessed the bottom.
1. I use a long stick to touch the bottom and measure the stick.
2. I drop a pressure sensitive radio transmitter that reports back the pressure at the bottom.
3. I use an sonar device to measure the depth.
4. I find three other similarly independent methods for measuring the depth.
Now if all my methods give me a result within 1m of 615m deep, then either:
1. the lake is approx. 615m deep.
2. something affected all my measurements in exactly the same way as to confuse all my methods (a large school of fish maybe?). But the different methods used different techniques which would not all be fooled by anything we can think of.
3. we made random mistakes in all the methods which just happened to result in the same wrong reading for all methods. eg the real depth is 500m but all methods went wrong by 115m exactly.
Statistics should tell us that No. 3 is highly unlikely and actually more unlikely for a greater error for example if the real error was 2m then 3 is almost conceivable, whereas an error of 100m makes 3. so improbable as to be considered impossible.
30 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayaaaaaaaaaaa
Have not left, my point has been you cannot weight data you do not
have or properly weight data you are getting wrong if you do not know
it is wrong. There isn't much of a point to keep going at it since it
seems you know all there is, nothing has been missed one way or
another. Your methods are flawless I guess, cannot argue with flawless
methods.
Kelly
you drive me crazy.
IT doesn't matter if the data is wrong. Data IS wrong, we know it. That's why statistics was invented. There's a distribution for how wrong the data is, and according to the recollected data we can find the error bars for each sample. If we only pick one sample it's very difficult to be precise on its specific timedate. It can be very "stressed" or not, and we don't know. If we pick 1000 samples, we have a distribution of values and we can access how wrong the data is and find intervals of confidence. We assume all data can be wrong, you understand??
If you can't understand basic statistics arguments I can't introduce you to the intrinsicaties of carbon dating. But you can't be right on this one unless you say God messed up in a very strange way with ALL samples with the purpose to trick us. Statistics is statistics. It measures flaws. And statistics say you are deep wrong. Strangely, 99% seem to agree with it. 1% are religious fundamentalists.