[Geko45]

Peace Warrior, are you suggesting that biblical scholars discovered the value of pi before moden day mathematicians?

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

(btw- The photo thing didn't escape me. At least you have a sense of humor. )

Neither you nor I were around to witness the creation of the Sun. It may very well be a star, or it may be totally different from other stars in the universe, but one thing is for sure, you are utilizing what you believe to have occurred (i.e., theory) coupled with a light smattering of historical science, which is no where even close to an actual, empirically scientific explanation for the "birth" of stars as promoted by the Big Bang, Oscillating Universe, and or any of the Stellar evolution theories.

ETA: let me bring you up to speed

empirical - adjective - \im-ˈpir-i-kəl\

1: originating in or based on observation or experience
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

So you are not sure if the sun is a star now?

Is there any empirical evidence you have a functional brain inside your skull? Exactly how do you come to that conclusion? You have a bible verse to back that up, since actual evidence seems to not be your strong suit.... While we're at it, have a cat scan or mri of your head?

And regarding radiometric dating, potassium argon dating relies on half lives of over a billion years. Utterly useless for timeframes around 6000 to 13000 years, so that pretty much puts your young earth creation theory into the trash bin of history, using actual evidence and real physical phenomenon. If everything were 13000 years old or less, everything would appear the same age using potassium argon dating, i.e. essentially zero. Which is demonstrably not the case.

Of course, you'll pretend that evidence doesn't exist.
Randy

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by steveksux

Did you make all that up yourself???

Radiometric dating is based on comparing the normal ratios of isotopes accumulated in living animals to the ratios in the fossils, and using the half life of the isotope to figure out how long it would take to decay to the ratio seen in the fossil. That's what "evos" use. Its based on known rates of decay, measurable ratios, and that thing called "math".

You seem to again be confused over basic facts, and even basic definitions.

Randy

Could "contamination" by ground water affect the results of radiometric dating on a given sample supplied for such testing?

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by steveksux

So you are not sure if the sun is a star now?

Is there any empirical evidence you have a functional brain inside your skull? Exactly how do you come to that conclusion? You have a bible verse to back that up, since actual evidence seems to not be your strong suit.... While we're at it, have a cat scan or mri of your head?

Randy

I know what the Sun is, but when speaking only from an empirically derived scientific perspective, one must be guarded before claiming the Sun is "just like other stars" in the Universe.


ETA: I am speaking from the point of a technicality.
..

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Could "contamination" by ground water affect the results of radiometric dating on a given sample supplied for such testing?

Not sure. I would not claim that no sample has ever been contaminated. But I am sure that every single sample ever found anywhere on earth that shows an age > 13,000 years was not contaminated by groundwater. I know moon rocks that date at billions of years old were not contaminated by groundwater that doesn't exist on the moon.

I know you are desperately trying to deny evidence for no reason other than to avoid admitting to yourself that you've been misled by misinterpretation of scripture. There's plenty of Christian churches that gave up the 10,000 year old Earth decades ago. Just as they gave up the idea the Earth was the center of the universe. The bible is not a science textbook. It was not even intended as a goat herding manual at the time it was written, and that was something they were actually knowledgeable about back then.

Randy

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Peace Warrior, are you suggesting that biblical scholars discovered the value of pi before moden day mathematicians?

No, never said that, but they most certainly may have known its value. I have no way of knowing one way or another.

Do you believe others, around the same time as 1st Kings was written, or anytime before, knew the value of pi?

Essentially, it is an old wives tale type of thing to claim that the Holy Bible states the value of pi is 3. Practically 100% of the time 1 Kings, chap 7, verse 26 is never mentioned when such a claim is made to Christians. My post with the illustration addressed -am's- false implication.

I'm going back over the thread as i have been accused by people, not even members at GT until this year, that I am skipping posts. I'll be going back and recapping for a while I would guess. Bear with me...

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

I know what the Sun is, but when speaking only from an empirically derived scientific perspective, one must be guarded before claiming the Sun is "just like other stars" in the Universe.


ETA: I am speaking from the point of a technicality.
..

If you propose the sun is different from other stars, you ought to have some basis for saying that. Everything actually measured about it lines up with other medium sized yellow stars for instance.

If your basis for saying that is merely that YOU don't know, your theory about the sun is as farked up as your theory about the age of the earth.

Speaking from a factual standpoint, not a technicality. Arguments from ignorance carry no more weight from the willingly ignorant, regardless of their being subject matter experts in ignorance. That merely transforms it to an argument from authority in that case, simply a different logical fallacy.

Randy

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Do you believe others, around the same time as 1st Kings was written, or anytime before, knew the value of pi?

Not a belief, it's a matter of historical record that ancient Egyptian and Babylonian mathematicians were able to estimate pi within one percent of its true value about 1000 years before the book of kings was written.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by steveksux

Not sure. I would not claim that no sample has ever been contaminated. But I am sure that every single sample ever found anywhere on earth that shows an age > 13,000 years was not contaminated by groundwater. I know moon rocks that date at billions of years old were not contaminated by groundwater that doesn't exist on the moon.

I know you are desperately trying to deny evidence for no reason other than to avoid admitting to yourself that you've been misled by misinterpretation of scripture. There's plenty of Christian churches that gave up the 10,000 year old Earth decades ago. Just as they gave up the idea the Earth was the center of the universe. The bible is not a science textbook. It was not even intended as a goat herding manual at the time it was written, and that was something they were actually knowledgeable about back then.

Randy

Are you a supporter of the carbon-14 dating methodology?

Do you know if the Earth's atmosphere has reached the saturation point of carbon-14 yet?

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Not a belief, it's a matter of historical record that ancient Egyptian and Babylonian mathematicians were able to estimate pi within one percent of its true value about 1000 years before the book of kings was written.

Hey, then since ancient Egyptian and Babylonian mathematicians were around and the knowledge has been available to know that the Holy Bible didn't contradict itself on this point.

Amazing to me how college graduates still try to bring this one up.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Are you a supporter of the carbon-14 dating methodology?

Do you know if the Earth's atmosphere has reached the saturation point of carbon-14 yet?

Where's your empirical evidence you seem to require from everyone else? Demonstrate for the class why there is a saturation point, what the value is? Is the C14 actually going up?

You can just post a link to the creationist apologist web site you're quote mining from if you don't understand a thing about what you're saying, which is becoming painfully obvious. No sense you botching up descriptions of flawed theories.

Randy

[wingryder]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

I know what the Sun is, but when speaking only from an empirically derived scientific perspective, one must be guarded before claiming the Sun is "just like other stars" in the Universe.

What empirically is difference between our sun and other stars?

Are you aware that astronomers know a great deal about stars? We can tell their size, their chemical make-up, their temperture, their absolute magnitude and their lifespan!

Do you know they are able to extract this information through several overlapping methods (thus independently varifiable results).

Have you ever seen the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram?



Spectroscopy?



...or standard candles, paralax, doppler shift, type 1A supernovae & variable stars (and their significance to determining distances).

There is PLENTY of evidence that our sun is a star. While no 2 stars are precisely the same, there is nothing significantly different about our star... it is a humdrum, main sequence run-of-the-mill star. Certainly nothing that would reclassify it as anything other than a star. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it to the Astronomical Union for peer review. Science LOVES opposing opinion. That is how we learn.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by steveksux

Where's your empirical evidence you seem to require from everyone else? Demonstrate for the class why there is a saturation point, what the value is? Is the C14 actually going up? ...

Randy

Even the inventor of carbon-14 dating knew there was a saturation point. You're simply trying to dance around the questions. Nice try... but you'd better hurry up and google again. Better luck with your renewed search.

ETA: I asked you two, yes or no questions.

Are you a supporter of the carbon-14 dating methodology?

Do you know if the Earth's atmosphere has reached the saturation point of carbon-14 yet?

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by wingryder

What empirically is difference between our sun and other stars?

Are you aware that astronomers know a great deal about stars? We can tell their size, their chemical make-up, their temperture, their absolute magnitude and their lifespan!

Do you know they are able to extract this information through several overlapping methods (thus independently varifiable results).

Have you ever seen the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram?



Spectroscopy?



...or standard candles, paralax, doppler shift, type 1A supernovae & variable stars (and their significance to determining distances).

There is PLENTY of evidence that our sun is a star. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it to the Astronomical Union for peer review. Science LOVES opposing opinion. That is how we learn.

Did you read the title of the thread? Certain folks I'll go tangential with, but others are usually smarter and can avoid it. Hint hint.

Stay on topic...

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Could "contamination" by ground water affect the results of radiometric dating on a given sample supplied for such testing?

Are you suggesting that such "contamination" can not be readily identified in a sample and that researchers can not then correct for such error or eliminate the sample from the sample group altogether as biased due to external processes?

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

...That the Earth is fixed and immobile? ...

I going to assume you are speaking of Psalm 93:1.

A few minutes with a Hebrew lexicon, or a Strong's Concordance, will easily fixed this supposed contradiction.

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

... The ability of Koalas to spread like seed and stow away on ships?

What particular chapter and verse in the Holy Bible are you referring to?

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Saber99

I'm sorry what do you mean by "still" i have less than 200 post and have never conversed with you before. How in the hell do you even have a previous opinion of me or my character.

Unlike you, I have the ability to recognize that others may be in position where their knowledge of a particular topic may surpass my own. And allowing them to debate said topic would be far more fruitful. you call it being a lemming I call it humility. Your self assurance on the other hand is so overly inflated that I really do believe you suffer from a mental disorder( That's not a joke or an insult,given the way you act I have serious concerns for you mental health).... but yes in real life as well I am capable of recognizing when others may be deserving of my respect, and believe that their opinions carry a high degree of creditability( again i must be such a lemming ). I do not walk around this earth believing that I am the undisputed expert on every topic or that my intelligence is somehow vastly superior to everyone else.You know for a christian, you have absolutely no concept of how to be humble.

My post did not address the bible but instead your arrogance and inability to participate in a rational discussion in which you may actually have to admit that your unqualified opinions are not indisputable. Or did that online school of yours make you an expert in physics to the point where you can totally dismiss the theories of PhD physicist on the formation of stars. Clearly you are just so much smarter than the rest of us .

When provided evidence you dismiss it out of hand. while casting baseless insults at just about everyone in a attempt to distract from the point that you haven't actually provided any actual evidence yourself. your explanations sound like something that could be found on the show "ancient aliens". Proof doesn't constitute statements like "may" or "isn't it possible". you're simply creating highly unlikely yet marginally possible scenarios out of thin air without actual proof that's what happened. yet you assume that that it is EXACTLY what happened, and that your theory is unquestionable. Allowing you to hold onto your preconceived idea of the truth. That's not proof, its a wild ass guess as to what may have happened completely lacking in evidence to support it...

Btw Claiming God made a donkey talk IS NOT ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that any donkey ever talked.

"must suck to be you"- No I'm fairly awesome and rather content with my life.

I was right the first time... a lemming. Thanks for sharing.

[wingryder]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Did you read the title of the thread? Certain folks I'll go tangential with, but others are usually smarter and can avoid it. Hint hint.

Stay on topic...

Yes, I read the entire thread. I am addressing your point that the sun is not a star. How is that off topic?

But you have not addressed a single question in my post. Simply dodged by saying I'm off topic.

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Now, where were we...? Lucy's knee?

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

No, you previously stated that, "I reiterate, all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves".

We're still waiting for you to provide any of this wealth of all available research.

Unless, of course, you're admitting that you're unable to provide scientific evidence that stars cannot form and you'd like to move on.

Then all of a sudden...

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

It is no secret, lucy is the name...

And then you admonish wingryder to

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Stay on topic...

What is the current topic? Have you abandoned presenting evidence that stars cannot form and decided to move on?

-ArtificialGrape

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Are you a supporter of the carbon-14 dating methodology?

Do you think that carbon-14 dating is used to date the earth?

-ArtificialGrape

[wingryder]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

Do you think that carbon-14 dating is used to date the earth?

-ArtificialGrape

[Saber99]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

I was right the first time... a lemming. Thanks for sharing.

ah..ok then seeing as how you haven't been right once yet in this thread I'm just gonna let that go. Btw I've really enjoyed the last 11 pages of you making your self look like a blatant idiot who most likely couldn't pass high school biology,physics or even chemistry. Seriously its a comedy at this point and I'm not sure you realize that you're the butt of the joke.

PW- You're a real winner,truly getting a lot out of that online education of yours huh? Remind me, what classes did you take? Your degree is in what? Because as far as I can tell all of your info/opinions about science are coming directly from the internet for wholly unqualified sources( if provided at all).

Now I'll just sit back and continue to watch you be torn apart by just about EVERYONE. I mean that have you noticed that no one is coming to your defense, not one. FFS that are members on this board who are whack job religious and even they don't have your back on this one.....does that tell you nothing?? At any point have you stepped backed and asked yourself why NO ONE agrees with you? Perhaps you're just not as smart as you liked to think you are?

You can call me a lemming ( I've been called worse by people who's opinion I actually respect). But at least I'm not a self-delusional, barely educated fool who doesn't quite grasp BASIC science, yet thinks he's intellectually on par with Stephen Hawkings.

It saddens me to know that people actually have to tolerate you in person. Your personality alone is intolerable.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Fixed it for ya!

I never said anything of the like, but before I fixed it, it was the best apology I ever saw you make. You're gettin' soft.

Reduced to changing others words? You truly have reached the nadir haven't you?

Such an outlandish hypothetical occurrence based on your suppositions so far in this thread.

You will forgive me for not even pretending to respond until you or someone else actually gets close to having something worthy enough to give rise to decent premise on which to base such a question.

I've forgiven you for not responding up to this point, in fact I've come to expect it. Why would now be any different?

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Even the inventor of carbon-14 dating knew there was a saturation point. You're simply trying to dance around the questions. Nice try... but you'd better hurry up and google again. Better luck with your renewed search.

ETA: I asked you two, yes or no questions.

Are you a supporter of the carbon-14 dating methodology?

Yes

Do you know if the Earth's atmosphere has reached the saturation point of carbon-14 yet?

Never heard anyone even bring this up.

Here's my 2 questions: where's the evidence that the atmosphere is or is not saturated yet. What's the relevance of whether the atmosphere is or is not saturated to carbon-14 dating.

If you're feeling generous, you can even explain what you think saturation of the atmosphere with regards to carbon-14 actually is. Define it, explain how you would determine what the saturation point is. How saturated with C14 is the atmosphere now?

Randy

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

... Do you know if the Earth's atmosphere has reached the saturation point of carbon-14 yet? ...

Originally Posted by steveksux

... Never heard anyone even bring this up. ...

Still dancing, but point of order here, the answer from you for this question would be "No," correct?

Right???