My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

[_Franktalk]

Because it's irritating to others. It's a variety of troll.

You still don't get it. I have stated why I post here many times. I do so because it forces me to place my beliefs in logical order so I can write about them. I would not preach to you my beliefs on the street but you come here by your own choice. By arguing issues you invite diverse ideas. So in this environment I am free to discuss my beliefs without stepping on yours.

If you identify a troll as someone who wishes to argue for arguing sake then there are many trolls on this site. A perfect environment for me to sharpen my ideas.

[_Maksutov]

I am pretty open about my beliefs.

You think you are, but not really. Your beliefs seem to only change based on what you feel. When facts are presented that do not fit what you feel like believing you start talking about something else. You think you are a truth seeker, but your posts tell us you are not. I can understand people may have numerous beliefs in which no good evidence supports or denies them. The problem arises when one does not change their beliefs when confronting good evidence to do so as you are doing. That is why you will not get back to the subject of dating methods used by sciences. Have fun though.

All religionists believe in feelings. Scientists do too, but not as authoritative sources of data. They see them as biochemical and socially induced events in the neurology of the organism. An element of consciousness. Is analysis destructive and reductionist to the point that we will lose our feelings? I don't think so, but we will be a bit more reserved in trusting them. Take heart feeling folk, we're also looking into the errors and artifacts in the thinking and remembering processes, so you should not take the skepticism toward the Emos too personally.

[_Maksutov]

Because it's irritating to others. It's a variety of troll.

You still don't get it. I have stated why I post here many times. I do so because it forces me to place my beliefs in logical order so I can write about them. I would not preach to you my beliefs on the street but you come here by your own choice. By arguing issues you invite diverse ideas. So in this environment I am free to discuss my beliefs without stepping on yours.

If you identify a troll as someone who wishes to argue for arguing sake then there are many trolls on this site. A perfect environment for me to sharpen my ideas.

I don't know if that's what you're doing or not, Frank. The jury is still out on you. But saying that we shouldn't criticize and debunk you because you're babbling out loud instead of in the privacy of your own cranium? Sorry, dude. You knew what this place was when you landed. I haven't seen enough coherence from you to really know what your beliefs are, except that you take shots at people who really are trying to find out things. I don't care if your "beliefs" "step on mine". That happens every day. You're Constitutionally protected, as you should be. And I'm equally protected in pointing out the many problems, inconsistencies, contradictions, errors and more that are on display in your posts. So carry on, Frank. Tell us all about your beliefs but don't give us any reasons to be convinced. You're just making conversation, after all, you have nothing of substance to offer one way or the other. Intellectual inertia is a real thing, I guess.

[_Franktalk]

I am pretty open about my beliefs.

You think you are, but not really. Your beliefs seem to only change based on what you feel. When facts are presented that do not fit what you feel like believing you start talking about something else. You think you are a truth seeker, but your posts tell us you are not. I can understand people may have numerous beliefs in which no good evidence supports or denies them. The problem arises when one does not change their beliefs when confronting good evidence to do so as you are doing. That is why you will not get back to the subject of dating methods used by sciences. Have fun though.

I posted a question. I asked if radiometric dating was verified by erosion. I also stated that I could care less if it is accurate or not. In one of the links from Spotlight there was a list of layered deposits that goes back a million years. What I did not see in that link was a comparison of decay data against those deposits. It may exist for all I know. But 1 million years is not a good verification of a system that declares 4.5 billion years of age for various trace evidence on the earth. A sample of 1 part to 4500. For all I know the age of the earth is older. You see I am open to where the data leads. But I am not open to accept a system of dating because someone says it is correct. My whole point was to show that science has jumped to a conclusion that may not be true. To discuss the details of radiometric dating is not the issue. It is the separate verification of the system I seek. I knew going in that science has abandoned the search to verify radiometric dating. You see I am of the opinion that the past may not be the same as today. That assumption of science is fine for them but I will not make that leap with them.

Instead of focusing on my question of verification a pile of data about radiometric dating was posted. None of this answers my question. It seems to me that many are happy with the answers that radiometric dating supplies. Why verify a system in which everyone is happy with the numbers. This is not science.

[_Themis]

All religionists believe in feelings. Scientists do too, but not as authoritative sources of data. They see them as biochemical and socially induced events in the neurology of the organism. An element of consciousness. Is analysis destructive and reductionist to the point that we will lose our feelings? I don't think so, but we will be a bit more reserved in trusting them. Take heart feeling folk, we're also looking into the errors and artifacts in the thinking and remembering processes, so you should not take the skepticism toward the Emos too personally.

Frank cannot tell us why his feeling based beliefs are right, so why should we think they are, when we could find so many others who also have feelings based beliefs in conflict with his? Why is he right and they wrong?

[_Maksutov]

You think you are, but not really. Your beliefs seem to only change based on what you feel. When facts are presented that do not fit what you feel like believing you start talking about something else. You think you are a truth seeker, but your posts tell us you are not. I can understand people may have numerous beliefs in which no good evidence supports or denies them. The problem arises when one does not change their beliefs when confronting good evidence to do so as you are doing. That is why you will not get back to the subject of dating methods used by sciences. Have fun though.

I posted a question. I asked if radiometric dating was verified by erosion. I also stated that I could care less if it is accurate or not. In one of the links from Spotlight there was a list of layered deposits that goes back a million years. What I did not see in that link was a comparison of decay data against those deposits. It may exist for all I know. But 1 million years is not a good verification of a system that declares 4.5 billion years of age for various trace evidence on the earth. A sample of 1 part to 4500. For all I know the age of the earth is older. You see I am open to where the data leads. But I am not open to accept a system of dating because someone says it is correct. My whole point was to show that science has jumped to a conclusion that may not be true. To discuss the details of radiometric dating is not the issue. It is the separate verification of the system I seek. I knew going in that science has abandoned the search to verify radiometric dating. You see I am of the opinion that the past may not be the same as today. That assumption of science is fine for them but I will not make that leap with them.

Instead of focusing on my question of verification a pile of data about radiometric dating was posted. None of this answers my question. It seems to me that many are happy with the answers that radiometric dating supplies. Why verify a system in which everyone is happy with the numbers. This is not science.

You were answered that erosion rates are wildly inconsistent. That is science, Frank.

Are you going to open a beginning science textbook or are you still too proud and/or lazy to learn? This information is all available out there if you actually cared to look. But you don't. That says a lot about you.

[Guest]

I posted a question. I asked if radiometric dating was verified by erosion. I also stated that I could care less if it is accurate or not. In one of the links from Spotlight there was a list of layered deposits that goes back a million years. What I did not see in that link was a comparison of decay data against those deposits. It may exist for all I know. But 1 million years is not a good verification of a system that declares 4.5 billion years of age for various trace evidence on the earth. A sample of 1 part to 4500. For all I know the age of the earth is older. You see I am open to where the data leads.

You posted a question in which you already had a conclusion in mind. You were not interested in what people had to say, and more importantly, you were not interested in researching the question from the scientists themselves.

But I am not open to accept a system of dating because someone says it is correct. My whole point was to show that science has jumped to a conclusion that may not be true.

You don't really understand the science so you cannot know they have jumped to a conclusion. You will need to learn a lot more first.

To discuss the details of radiometric dating is not the issue. It is the separate verification of the system I seek.

It's a vital issue. You need to understand the physics and show why it could change. I demonstrated that there has been no change in two examples. One going back over 10k years and the other over 200 million.

I knew going in that science has abandoned the search to verify radiometric dating.

No you made a incorrect assumption on what you feel like believing. You have no idea what they have or have not done, or are currently doing.

You see I am of the opinion that the past may not be the same as today. That assumption of science is fine for them but I will not make that leap with them.

Science has not made this assumption, but you are full of them. Scientists are far more open to being wrong then you are.

Instead of focusing on my question of verification a pile of data about radiometric dating was posted. None of this answers my question. It seems to me that many are happy with the answers that radiometric dating supplies. Why verify a system in which everyone is happy with the numbers. This is not science.

You have no idea what the science is, but what you have heard or read from others who also haven't got a clue. First get a clue.

[_Themis]

You were answered that erosion rates are wildly inconsistent. That is science, Frank.

They can be quite inconsistent, but if they are in the ball park it still works as a decent verify-er, but not the only ones being used.

Are you going to open a beginning science textbook or are you still too proud and/or lazy to learn? This information is all available out there if you actually cared to look. But you don't. That says a lot about you.

So much of it is at our finger tips, but one needs to know how to find it through all the pseudo science out there.

[_spotlight]

With most of the people on the earth I believe in a higher being or beings that have been around for eternity. I fail to see this as earth shattering news.

So those in the great beyond are exceptions to your statements? Let's see how that logic plays out just for fun.

The higher beings do not believe in themselves then? If they do then there is no need to specify those "on the earth" as a separate group from the latter. You can just state:

"With the majority of people I believe in a higher being or beings."

Now let's take a look at your previous us of this distinction:

There are many on the earth that believe a different history than you or I do. Are they all ignorant? Or do they feel the west has lied to them?

So the higher beings don't believe in a different history than people on the earth? Really odd don't you think? I mean they have the ultimate historical view and since the Bible states "few there be that find it" it seems their view would be different from those on the earth?

So again you could have simply stated:
There are many that believe in a different history than you or I do.

Let's look at the next previous use:

Yet for many on the earth science denies their personal experience.

So science does not deny the personal experience of those in the great beyond club? I really missed where science acknowledges their existence in the first place. Again you could have said:

Yet for many, science denies their personal experience, since this would include your immortals beyond the veil.

So your logic is still a fail Franktalk. Please change your name to anti-logictalk so people understand where you are coming from earlier on in attempting to engage with you.

Oh look, more:

In viewing the comments written about me I find it easy to see why many people in the world believe the west is arrogant and self serving.

So In other words the immortals not in the world are an exception? They don't see the west as arrogant and self serving? Sort of shoots your logic in the foot doesn't it Franktalk?

You still don't get it. I have stated why I post here many times. I do so because it forces me to place my beliefs in logical order so I can write about them.

Well then you've failed.

[_spotlight]

You see I am of the opinion that the past may not be the same as today.

Oh good, so you deny the fined tuning of the universe. You know, tweak the constants of nature a little this way or that and you have a universe unacceptable for the existence of life. Too bad the evidence here as well does not agree with your position Frank.

Instead of focusing on my question of verification a pile of data about radiometric dating was posted.

Which verified radiometric dating. You don't understand it and you don't understand what constitutes verification of the method.

None of this answers my question. It seems to me that many are happy with the answers that radiometric dating supplies. Why verify a system in which everyone is happy with the numbers. This is not science.

All this reveals is that you really do not comprehend the math you say you took in college or a university. If you did you would understand how and why the method works. And I also pointed you to the isochron method which removes completely the initial condition issue from radiometric dating so you have nothing Frank.