Key Assumption Made in Discovery of Dark Energy in Error

[Right Divider]

Alate One went to efforts to explain the evidence in detail and break it down for you only to be met with the usual "response" as the above.

I will continue to repeat the truth.

Consensus does NOT determine truth.

The basis of radiometric dating is based on ASSUMPTIONS about the ORIGINS of radioactive isotopes and their changes over time.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I will continue to repeat the truth.

Consensus does NOT determine truth.

The basis of radiometric dating is based on ASSUMPTIONS about the ORIGINS of radioactive isotopes and their changes over time.

Rather, you'll continue to repeat the same mantras as if they mean anything and post some words in all caps. Alate One took the effort to address you only to be met with nothing.

 

[Stuu]

I will continue to repeat the truth.

You left out the capital T in Truth.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Rather, you'll continue to repeat the same mantras as if they mean anything and post some words in all caps. Alate One took the effort to address you only to be met with nothing.

The CAPS are simply to emphasize the word. It appears that you still cannot see it.

You've repeatedly used your fallacious arguments and never once actually addressed the facts.

Your philosophical paradigm rules over the facts in your mind.

 

[Clete]

Rather, you'll continue to repeat the same mantras as if they mean anything and post some words in all caps. Alate One took the effort to address you only to be met with nothing.

It isn't a mantra, its the truth. Radiometric dating is based on a whole list of assumptions, virtually all of which conform to a paradigm that believes the Earth is billions of years old.

In short, the assumptions made that allow radiometric dating to work is a form of begging the question. The dates you get from radiometric dating will be roughly consistent with the assumptions you make about how old something is supposed to be. If the assumptions are correct then the radiometric dating is useful but the point is that using radiometric dating to prove anything is fallacious precisely because of the assumptions that are made when the measurement is interpreted and a date given.

If it were done scientifically, the tests would be double blinded where those doing the measurement have no idea what is being tested or where it was found or how old its supposed to be. Radiometric dating is NEVER done in this fashion. If it were, what you'd find is that it's usefulness is very comparatively limited.

Clete

 

[ok doser]

Artie's whole argument consists of "Alate One said some stuff I dont understand well enough to regurgitate, so there!"

 

[Right Divider]

It isn't a mantra, its the truth. Radiometric dating is based on a whole list of assumptions, virtually all of which conform to a paradigm that believes the Earth is billions of years old.

In short, the assumptions made that allow radiometric dating to work is a form of begging the question. The dates you get from radiometric dating will be roughly consistent with the assumptions you make about how old something is supposed to be. If the assumptions are correct then the radiometric dating is useful but the point is that using radiometric dating to prove anything is fallacious precisely because of the assumptions that are made when the measurement is interpreted and a date given.

If it were done scientifically, the tests would be double blinded where those doing the measurement have no idea what is being tested or where it was found or how old its supposed to be. Radiometric dating is NEVER done in this fashion. If it were, what you'd find is that it's usefulness is very comparatively limited.

Clete

I have repeatedly tried to get AB and others to discuss the actual facts of radiometric dating. They will not.

They always and without fail invoke their favorite fallacious arguments.

• So and so is smart and they accept it.
• Lot of experts believe it.
• The consensus among experts is that it's true.
• etc. etc. etc.

 

[Clete]

I have repeatedly tried to get AB and others to discuss the actual facts of radiometric dating. They will not.

They always and without fail invoke their favorite fallacious arguments.

• So and so is smart and they accept it.
• Lot of experts believe it.
• The consensus among experts is that it's true.
• etc. etc. etc.

Par for the course around here lately.

 

[User Name]

Par for the course around here lately.

The "actual facts of radiometric dating" and similar issues have been debated on this forum for...how many decades now? Your side has made it clear that you reject mainstream science and why. Our side has made it clear that we accept mainstream science and why. What is the point of continuing to argue in circles? It's been done to death...

:deadhorse:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I have repeatedly tried to get AB and others to discuss the actual facts of radiometric dating. They will not.

They always and without fail invoke their favorite fallacious arguments.

• So and so is smart and they accept it.
• Lot of experts believe it.
• The consensus among experts is that it's true.
• etc. etc. etc.

You had in depth responses from Alate One in regards to your questions and responded with nothing, both on this and anything that didn't tie in with your belief system. How she had the patience to indulge you and others is a credit to her given the childishness and ignorance she constantly had to put up with in turn. The only way you'll be open to anything is to throw off the shackles of fundamentalism and then there might be room to grow. Otherwise...

Pointless.

 

[Clete]

The "actual facts of radiometric dating" and similar issues have been debated on this forum for...how many decades now? Your side has made it clear that you reject mainstream science and why. Our side has made it clear that we accept mainstream science and why. What is the point of continuing to argue in circles? It's been done to death...

:deadhorse:

If you don't want to engage the debate then leave and find a more productive hobby.

 

[ok doser]

Artie's whole argument consists of "Alate One said some stuff I dont understand well enough to regurgitate, so there!"

You had in depth responses from Alate One in regards to your questions and responded with nothing, both on this and anything that didn't tie in with your belief system. How she had the patience to indulge you and others is a credit to her given the childishness and ignorance she constantly had to put up with in turn. The only way you'll be open to anything is to throw off the shackles of fundamentalism and then there might be room to grow. Otherwise...

Pointless.

:darwinsm:

 

[Jonahdog]

If you don't want to engage the debate then leave and find a more productive hobby.

There is nothing to debate. The literal Biblical side is wrong. The evidence is clear.

 

[Right Divider]

You had in depth responses from Alate One in regards to your questions and responded with nothing, both on this and anything that didn't tie in with your belief system. How she had the patience to indulge you and others is a credit to her given the childishness and ignorance she constantly had to put up with in turn. The only way you'll be open to anything is to throw off the shackles of fundamentalism and then there might be room to grow. Otherwise...

Pointless.

You guys can say this all that you want. But the bottom line is that the long ages are based on a philosophical paradigm and not a scientific one. There are some of the assumptions of that paradigm:

• The "Big Bang"
• Stellar "evolution"
• "Evolution" of the solar system.
• The "accidental" and "miraculous" appearance of a single life form from dead chemicals.
• The massive diversification of all other life forms from this "lucky one" by more amazing accidents.

All of these have tremendous SCIENTIFIC problems that are ignored.

So you can continue to sit on your high horse and make your claims, but I'd rather discuss the facts.

 

[Jonahdog]

You guys can say this all that you want. But the bottom line is that the long ages are based on a philosophical paradigm and not a scientific one. There are some of the assumptions of that paradigm:

• The "Big Bang"
• Stellar "evolution"
• "Evolution" of the solar system.
• The "accidental" and "miraculous" appearance of a single life form from dead chemicals.
• The massive diversification of all other life forms from this "lucky one" by more amazing accidents.

All of these have tremendous SCIENTIFIC problems that are ignored.

So you can continue to sit on your high horse and make your claims, but I'd rather discuss the facts.

But you are willing to accept a young earth when all the evidence points elsewhere. But you do get to use big words like "paradigm".

 

[Right Divider]

But you are willing to accept a young earth when all the evidence points elsewhere.

"All the evidence" does NOT point elsewhere. You are just failing to see anything that you don't want to see.

But you do get to use big words like "paradigm".

Did I need to point you to a definition?

 

[ok doser]

.... are based on a philosophical paradigm ...

... you do get to use big words like "paradigm".

"philosophical" is bigger


just saying

 

[Right Divider]

"philosophical" is bigger

just saying

:french:

 

[Clete]

There is nothing to debate. The literal Biblical side is wrong. The evidence is clear.

Liar.

There's plenty to debate, you just don't want to do it.

 

[Right Divider]

Liar.

There's plenty to debate, you just don't want to do it.

Elephant hurling satisfies his ego.