Spirituality
14 Jun 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelYou can forget RJ from getting it. He will never 'get it'.
yes. it was pretty smelly and i got the feeling that they had no running water where they resided. This tribe is one of the few who were not totally wiped out or assimilated (during the whit australia policy).
Actually i think that our family was let into this country in 1980, when the white australia policy was still in place. I feel a bit ashamed " , I am mainly referring to 'aborigonal spirituality', but any other part of my post , too
I probably won't either but I have been around a bit, would loved to have been there.
So what happened to the girl? Did she go to Ayers with you? Did she keep on going with the aborigines?
They sound like very cool people, not violent at all unless they are attacked.
You must have felt something like Carlos Castaneda on his first journey to the Southwest.
RJ: You can skepticize all you want but the real world follows the genius of Carl Popper, the originator of the idea that science works by the concept of falsifiability.
And you can bet there are scientists out there who doubt the uranium method just as you do. He however comes at it with real knowledge and will attempt to prove scientifically the uranium dating technique is full of crap.
He will pursue that until it is proven his method of falsifying the method does not work at which point he will admit he was wrong and the method is accurate.
You on the other hand, have no such background, all you can do and I mean that exactly, ALL you can do is poo poo it with zero scientific backup.
The thing you will never get is all the scientific achievements of the last 100 years have been made using the exact same scientific method, no matter what the science involved.
If its in Geology, Astronomy, Medical research, evolution, whatever, the methods are all the same and if a result happens in a science because of that method, the results are taken on face value, with the given that the results may later prove wrong just like Newtonian Physics had its day but Einstein showed that space can bend time and mass can bend space so Newtonian physics is valid up to a point but for more advanced work, Einsteinian physics gives better predictions that has held up to 100 years of extreme scrutiny by the new boys on the block trying to falsify Einstein, which hasn't happened yet, the latest being the neutrino's going faster than the speed of light which was falsified in itself so Einstein won that round, again.
So in the end you might be right about dating techniques but not because you just go 'god did it so all science is wrong that goes against the bible' but because real science put in the effort which in some cases takes decades to bear fruit to make the new result believable.
You have NOTHING believable and never will. ALL you have is Poo Poo this and Poo Poo that but only in fields where the science contradicts the bible.
That is where you fall down, because all sciences use the same method so if you diss evolution you diss ALL sciences whether you think so or not.
Like I have said before, you and your ilk are destined for the dust bin of history.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhousehttp://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2012/05/30/is-atheism-increasing-at-the-expense-of-theism/
You can forget RJ from getting it. He will never 'get it'.
I probably won't either but I have been around a bit, would loved to have been there.
So what happened to the girl? Did she go to Ayers with you? Did she keep on going with the aborigines?
They sound like very cool people, not violent at all unless they are attacked.
You must have felt s ...[text shortened]... t.
Like I have said before, you and your ilk are destined for the dust bin of history.
Go atheism.
19 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThey sound like very cool people, not violent at all unless they are attacked.
You can forget RJ from getting it. He will never 'get it'.
I probably won't either but I have been around a bit, would loved to have been there.
So what happened to the girl? Did she go to Ayers with you? Did she keep on going with the aborigines?
They sound like very cool people, not violent at all unless they are attacked.
You must have felt s ...[text shortened]... t.
Like I have said before, you and your ilk are destined for the dust bin of history.
I AM A COOL PERSON TOO. I AM NOT VIOLENT UNLESS ATTACKED!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
20 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75There are lots of dating methods of which radiometric dating is just one kind...
How did they come to certian dates before this new method they have now?
Although there are MANY different kinds of radiometric dating techniques...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
EDIT: oh and...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html
20 Jun 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo how old did these other types of dating technics say these paintings were?
There are lots of dating methods of which radiometric dating is just one kind...
Although there are MANY different kinds of radiometric dating techniques...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
EDIT: oh and...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html
20 Jun 12
Originally posted by galveston75The problem was there was no organic material in the paint itself. There was no C14 to measure, so they used the stalagmites around the paint or the deposits on the paint of the calcium deposits on top of the paint.
So how old did these other types of dating technics say these paintings were?
20 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI assume you shifted the point of attention from my post to RJ's half through there , somewhere. 😀 lol
You can forget RJ from getting it. He will never 'get it'.
I probably won't either but I have been around a bit, would loved to have been there.
So what happened to the girl? Did she go to Ayers with you? Did she keep on going with the aborigines?
They sound like very cool people, not violent at all unless they are attacked.
You must have felt s t.
Like I have said before, you and your ilk are destined for the dust bin of history.
The girl found some other 'guy' and went off and did her own thing. She was a bit too politically correct for me to even want her ph number
It was just the whole pile of coincidences at the turn-off there and then my subsequent dreams and some other stuff that made it like Castaneda - in a way, I guess.
I know RJ wont get it, but who knows? Every now and then I feel he's going to share something of his own that will shed light on his whole .. err... 'world'. Then again it might just be gas .
.They WERE very cool people in a way. Blunt honest. But always willing to tell a story 🙂
21 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseBut didn't they put a date on them before this new method?
The problem was there was no organic material in the paint itself. There was no C14 to measure, so they used the stalagmites around the paint or the deposits on the paint of the calcium deposits on top of the paint.
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by galveston75This is from that same article:
But didn't they put a date on them before this new method?
"Cave art specialist Dr Paul Pettitt of the University of Sheffield, UK said: "Until now our understanding of the age of cave art was sketchy at best; now we have firmly extended the earliest age of European cave art back by several thousand years, to the time of the last Neanderthals and earliest Homo sapiens. These earliest images do not represent animals, and suggest that the earliest art was non-figurative, which may have significant implications for how art evolved."
They were stymied by the lack of organic material but this new method does not depend on the presence of carbon but instead on the growth of calcium carbonate deposits that happens on everything inside a damp cave. You can tell how old something is by how thick the coating is on top of the piece being studied, which could also be a fossil, anything at all that just gets coated slowly by the action of carbonates. The same method allows them to calculate an age for stalagmites and so forth by how thick they are, in that case kind of like counting tree rings.
22 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseWell the problem I have with the "old dating ideas" is they sure sounded like fact or close to fact from all I've ever heard or been told by these guys.
This is from that same article:
"Cave art specialist Dr Paul Pettitt of the University of Sheffield, UK said: "Until now our understanding of the age of cave art was sketchy at best; now we have firmly extended the earliest age of European cave art back by several thousand years, to the time of the last Neanderthals and earliest Homo sapiens. These earl ...[text shortened]... talagmites and so forth by how thick they are, in that case kind of like counting tree rings.
I never heard anyone say that they in fact did not know and was only guessing.
I lived in Arizona for years and many of these drawings were on the news in that area very often and all these very ancient and far off dates were always thrown out there and we were supposed to believe that they were indeed fact.
I'd say that was not a good thing to do in trying to prove those paintings were as old as they were saying.
So the question is, why should anyone believe them now when they were so conviencing before to those who would believe it?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Jun 12
Originally posted by galveston75The news is an unbelievably crappy place to get scientific information from and judging scientists
Well the problem I have with the "old dating ideas" is they sure sounded like fact or close to fact from all I've ever heard or been told by these guys.
I never heard anyone say that they in fact did not know and was only guessing.
I lived in Arizona for years and many of these drawings were on the news in that area very often and all these very anc ...[text shortened]... anyone believe them now when they were so conviencing before to those who would believe it?
by the crap that gets reported in the news is like judging them based on what you were told after
a long game of Chinese whispers.
The real science will always have contained error bars and discussions of potential problems and
inaccuracies.
What this new science has done is reduce those error bars, it's an improvement in accuracy.
Science has EARNED an enormous amount of trust because of it's rigour and the RESULTS it has
achieved.
The modern world with all it's technology and knowledge is because of science and the things it has
learned.
Religion on the other hand has always been wrong and only ever gets more wrong.
"Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."
22 Jun 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeQuoting from talkorigins.org again. Remember my young hero called that the "Holy Grail for Atheists".
There are lots of dating methods of which radiometric dating is just one kind...
Although there are MANY different kinds of radiometric dating techniques...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
EDIT: oh and...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html