How Old is the Desk?
-
Last week I built a desk for my daughter.
I used wood from a tree that was over 100 years old.
Is the desk 1 week old or is the desk over 100 years old?
Last week I built a desk for my daughter.
I used wood from a tree that was over 100 years old.
Is the desk 1 week old or is the desk over 100 years old?
posted by Joe G @ 7:36 PM
39 Comments:
At 8:00 PM,
Unknown said…
The desk is young. The wood is old.
Am I right?
At 8:08 PM,
Joe G said…
So the Earth could be young just made out of old material- right?
At 8:37 PM,
Ghostrider said…
So the Earth could be young just made out of old material- right?
The Earth is young, relatively speaking - around 4.55 billion years compared to the 13.5 billion year age of the universe.
Do you have a point?
At 9:50 PM,
blipey said…
Um...it could be...if only there where a way to figure out how long the material had been in its present form....
Wow. I guess we'll never know.
At 8:06 AM,
Joe G said…
The Earth is young, relatively speaking - around 4.55 billion years compared to the 13.5 billion year age of the universe.
How do you know that is the age of the Earth and not just the age of the materials?
At 8:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Um...it could be...if only there where a way to figure out how long the material had been in its present form....
Well radioactive decay starts when the atom is formed.
So do you have a method for doing what you described?
At 10:17 AM,
Ghostrider said…
How do you know that is the age of the Earth and not just the age of the materials?
No one can 'know' with 100% certainty, but we have zero evidence that the Earth was 'designed' out of older materials and lots that it wasn't.
You do highlight again the reason ID isn't science, because it's not falsifiable. No matter what evidence I produce for a 4.55 BYO Earth (or biological evolution), an IDiot can always claims "the Designer made it look that way on purpose!"
At 11:07 AM,
Joe G said…
How do you know that is the age of the Earth and not just the age of the materials?
Thorton:
No one can 'know' with 100% certainty, but we have zero evidence that the Earth was 'designed' out of older materials and lots that it wasn't.
Again "The Privileged Planet" presents the evidence tne Earth was designed.
There isn't any evidence that blind, undirected processes didit.
You do highlight again the reason ID isn't science, because it's not falsifiable.
And yet I have told you exactly how to falsify ID.
Ya see the design inference is based on requirements- what is required to bring whatever it is we are investigating into existence.
So all one has to do to falsify ID is demonstrate agency involvement is not required.
IOW assface, just as I have been telling you tards for years- just start substantiating your position and ID would go away.
No matter what evidence I produce for a 4.55 BYO Earth (or biological evolution), an IDiot can always claims "the Designer made it look that way on purpose!"
Not at all.
As I said if you can demonstrate that blind, undirected processes can account for something then there isn't any reason to infer design.
That is how the Explanatory Filter works.
If something else can account for it we never even consider agency involvement.
IOW Thorton all you are doing is proving that you are ignorant of your opponent's position.
Also ID doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth.
What I say is that it matters HOW the Earth was formed- HOW the Earth was formed would have a direct bearing on its age.
So how do we test your position's premise that the Earth was formed by hundreds, if not thousands (millions?) of chance cosmic collisions?
"The Privileged Planet" tells us how we can test the premise the Earth was designed- what does your position have?
At 1:09 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Again "The Privileged Planet" presents the evidence tne Earth was designed.
Ah, the old, tired "this puddle fits the hole it sits in perfectly, so the puddle must be designed!!" argument. There's a reason such idiocy gets laughed at Joe. Not our problem you're too stupid to understand why.
So all one has to do to falsify ID is demonstrate agency involvement is not required.
Plausible mechanisms for planet formation, supported with empirical evidence, have been know for years. They can be found in any decent astrophysics book. Sorry IDiot, but "GAWDDIDIT" is never going to be a scientific default position.
Astrophysics of Planet Formation
The study of planet formation has been revolutionized by recent observational breakthroughs, which have allowed the detection and characterization of extrasolar planets, the imaging of protoplanetary disks, and the discovery of the Solar System’s Kuiper Belt. Written for beginning graduate students, this textbook provides a basic understanding of the astrophysical processes that shape the formation of planetary systems. It begins by describing the structure and evolution of protoplanetary disks, moves on to the formation of planetesimals, terrestrial and gas giant planets, and concludes by surveying new theoretical ideas for the early evolution of planetary systems. Covering all phases of planet formation – from protoplanetary disks to the dynamical evolution of planetary systems – this introduction can be understood by readers with backgrounds in planetary science, observational and theoretical astronomy. It highlights the physical principles underlying planet formation and the areas where more research and new observations are needed.
• Graduate-level textbook on planet formation, incorporating knowledge gained from extrasolar planet discoveries • Summarizes all phases of planet formation so it can be understood by readers with diverse backgrounds in planetary science, and observational and theoretical astronomy • Focuses on the basic physical principles underlying the formation and evolution of planetary systems
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521887458
IOW assface, just as I have been telling you tards for years- just start substantiating your position and ID would go away.
ID has gone away Joe. Every since Kitzmiller v. Dover it has fallen completely off the radar. There's only a few isolated pockets of IDiots like you keeping the memory alive.
At 2:27 PM,
Joe G said…
Ah, the old, tired "this puddle fits the hole it sits in perfectly, so the puddle must be designed!!" argument.
Nope, not even close.
Do you really think your ignorance means something?
Plausible mechanisms for planet formation, supported with empirical evidence, have been know for years.
Plausible?
How do they test these plausible mechanisms?
They can be found in any decent astrophysics book.
Speculation based on the assumption is what one finds.
I will ask you AGAIN:
So how do we test your position's premise that the Earth was formed by hundreds, if not thousands (millions?) of chance cosmic collisions?
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.
I know what the speculation is.
I want to know how to test it.
As for ID being "gone away" not with the nonsensical "evidence" you have presented.
And definitely not by ignoring the design arguments.
At 4:28 PM,
Ghostrider said…
So how do we test your position's premise that the Earth was formed by hundreds, if not thousands (millions?) of chance cosmic collisions?
Christ but you're a dumb fuck.
The same way you test the hypothesis "this matured redwood tree grew from an acorn". You observe the various stages of the hypothesized process happening elsewhere, with accretion disks and protoplanets. You make detailed mathematical models based on all the observed data and knowledge of the effects of physics and gravity, and you verify that the process is indeed capable of forming planets. You take all the knowledge of our planet and the solar system, extrapolate back in time and verify that the observed data also fits the historic model. Given the complete lack of any contradicting other evidence (i.e Slartibartfast's signature), you tentatively conclude Earth was created by the same process.
How do you test the idea that the Earth was poofed into existence by a supernatural designer?
At 5:27 PM,
Joe G said…
Thorton,
How does your position explain gravity beyond it just "poofing" into existence?
How do you test the idea that the Earth was poofed into existence by a supernatural designer?
No idea- I don't know of anyone who holds that position.
If I run into someone I will ask them.
However we do have ways to test the design hypothesis- but you choose to ignore all of that.
As for plantary formation- do you realize there was a time when scientists thought all other solar systems would resemble ours?
Now we know better.
As for what we observe, again the extrapolation depends directly on the assumption.
IOW Thorton you don't have any way to test your position beyond assuming it.
You don't have any explanation for the laws of physics beyond just claiming them.
You don't have any explanation for the number of factors that had to have occurred at the right time and place in order to even get a habitable planet other than to say "it just happened".
“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”
“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
Just happened.
Pathetic Thorton...
At 6:31 PM,
Ghostrider said…
You don't have any explanation for the number of factors that had to have occurred at the right time and place in order to even get a habitable planet other than to say "it just happened".
Habitable by who? Or what? Humans evolved to fit the current conditions on the planet, not the other way around you moron. It's one more tired iteration of the "look, the puddle fits the hole, so the hole must be designed for the puddle" stupidity.
Please provide evidence that life on Earth today is the only possible form of life and Earth has the only possible conditions for intelligent life to develop in the entire universe. Show your work.
"Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
OH WOW! My legs are the perfect length to keep my ass from scraping the ground! PROOF OF THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!!!!
At 7:23 PM,
Joe G said…
You don't have any explanation for the number of factors that had to have occurred at the right time and place in order to even get a habitable planet other than to say "it just happened".
Habitable by who?
IOW you don't have any explanation.
Thank you.
Humans evolved to fit the current conditions on the planet, not the other way around you moron.
Evolved from what?
All evidence says humans come from other humans.
Please provide evidence that life on Earth today is the only possible form of life and Earth has the only possible conditions for intelligent life to develop in the entire universe.
That has nothing to do with my argument.
The point is we wouldn't be here without a larger moon and that exact SIZE of a moon- dimensions and mass- is perfect for making scientific discoveries and for keeping Earth from wobbling so much to make human life impossible.
"Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
OH WOW! My legs are the perfect length to keep my ass from scraping the ground!
Thank you for proving that you are a oiece of shit intellectual coward.
You won't read the book.
You won't address the evidence.
You just ignorantly flail away- perfect...
At 8:39 PM,
blipey said…
I've seen the video, do I still need to read the book?
At 9:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Seeing that you haven't demonstrated an understanding of what was presented in the movie- even though you said you watched it- I doubt you could deal with the book.
But the book and movie are moot.
Positive evidence for your position is what you need to focus on.
But what positive evidence can there be for the position of "it just happened dude!"?
But have at it.
At 9:19 PM,
blipey said…
Why isn't positive mathematical evidence for the quantity "size" necessary?
At 9:51 PM,
Joe G said…
Why isn't positive mathematical evidence for the quantity "size" necessary?
It is.
200 lbs. is BIGGER THAN 195 lbs.
200 - 195 = 5
A man 6' tall weighing 200 lbs. is BIGGER THAN a 6' tall 195 lb. man.
If you have a one ton truck you do not want to put 2-ton sized payload into the bed.
2 tons being MORE THAN (mathematics) 1 ton.
At 12:21 AM,
Ghostrider said…
A man 6' tall weighing 200 lbs. is BIGGER THAN a 6' tall 195 lb. man.
Which is bigger Joe - A man 6' tall weighing 200 lbs. or a man 6' 2" tall weighing 195 lbs?
At 7:17 AM,
Joe G said…
A man 6' tall weighing 200 lbs. is BIGGER THAN a 6' tall 195 lb. man.>
Which is bigger Joe -
I just told you.
Did you not understand what I said?
Ya see FIRST you have to acknowledge that you agree with and understand what I post BEFORE we can move on.
Because without that agreement and understanding there isn't any reason to discuss anything else.
If you had a brain you would understand that.
At 9:28 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Which is bigger Joe - A man 6' tall weighing 200 lbs. or a man 6' 2" tall weighing 195 lbs?
I just told you.
No you didn't Joe. Read the question again, and please no more cowardly evasions.
A 6' 2" man is bigger than a 6' man
A 200lb man is bigger than a 195 lb man.
Which is bigger Joe - A man 6' tall weighing 200 lbs. or a man 6' 2" tall weighing 195 lbs? And why?
At 9:42 AM,
Joe G said…
Thorton says:
A 200lb man is bigger than a 195 lb man.
and then asks:
Which is bigger Joe - A man 6' tall weighing 200 lbs. or a man 6' 2" tall weighing 195 lbs?
You just said:
A 200lb man is bigger than a 195 lb man.
Are you confused?
At 9:44 AM,
Joe G said…
As for cowardly evasions-
I am still waiting for POSITIVE evidence for your position.
This thread is not about "size".
I have a thread for that.
At 10:08 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Which is bigger Joe - A man 6' tall weighing 200 lbs. or a man 6' 2" tall weighing 195 lbs? And why?
You cowardly evaded the question again Joe.
If I post it in the other thread, will you quit being such a spineless girl and answer it?
At 10:35 AM,
Ghostrider said…
If the Earth isn't 4.55 BYO like all the scientific evidence indicates, then how old is the Earth Joe? How do you know?
At 11:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Which is bigger Joe - A man 6' tall weighing 200 lbs. or a man 6' 2" tall weighing 195 lbs?
What is the relevance of the question?
IOW what does your question have to do with anything I have posted?
At 11:01 AM,
Joe G said…
If the Earth isn't 4.55 BYO like all the scientific evidence indicates,
What evidence indicates the Earth is 4.55 BYO?
How do you know that is the age of the Earth and not just the age of the materials?
At 11:13 AM,
Ghostrider said…
If the Earth isn't 4.55 BYO like all the scientific evidence indicates, then how old is the Earth Joe? How do you know?
You cowardly evaded yet another question Joe.
How old is the Earth (NOT the 'materials'), and how do you know?
Try for one day to not be such a dickless wonder, OK?
At 11:19 AM,
Joe G said…
How old is the Earth (NOT the 'materials'), and how do you know?
I have been over this already:
ID and the age of the earth
All I know how old the Earth is depends on how the Earth was formed.
At 11:21 AM,
Joe G said…
What evidence indicates the Earth is 4.55 BYO?
You're not a dickless wonder- are you Thorton?
Or do you think it is OK that you avoid answering my questions?
At 11:21 AM,
Ghostrider said…
T: Which is bigger Joe - A man 6' tall weighing 200 lbs. or a man 6' 2" tall weighing 195 lbs?
J: What is the relevance of the question?
IOW what does your question have to do with anything I have posted?
I'm trying to pin you down on your objective criteria for deciding 'bigger'. Apparently you don't have one, just like you don't have any objective way to measure CSI, or detect design.
Pity you're such a cowardly blowhard and can't say 'I don't know' to save you life.
At 11:27 AM,
Joe G said…
I'm trying to pin you down on your objective criteria for deciding 'bigger'
How is that relevant?
I have provided examples to support my position.
Apparently you are too stupid to understand those examples.
Apparently you don't have one, just like you don't have any objective way to measure CSI, or detect design.
Of course I can and have objectively measured CSI and I can and have objectively detected design.
All you can do is run around with your head up your ass saying "is not" as if your ignorance is a refutation.
As for being a coward- I noticed you refuse to meet me.
That is because you are a fucking momma's boy little faggot coward.
At 11:27 AM,
Ghostrider said…
T:How old is the Earth (NOT the 'materials'), and how do you know?
J: I have been over this already:
ID and the age of the earth
Your link to your previous blog doesn't give your estimate age for the Earth's formation Joe. It just says the 4.5 BYO scientifically measured age is wrong.
Try again
How old is the Earth (NOT the 'materials'), and how do you know?
At 11:30 AM,
Joe G said…
ID's position on the age of the Earth is that it all depends on HOW the Earth was formed. That is key because we know that intelligent agencies can speed up processes- just look at manmade diamonds.
Now there are some who will complain that when one speeds up some processes there will be heat generated, for example from rapid rad decay. These people want to know where the heat went.
First we would have to know how much heat they are talking about and the verification of that. Then I would tell them to look at the Earth's core. IOW any heat generated by rapid decay could have been transeferred to the core. An inteligent designer would know that the core requires heat to stay molten so it can provide a proper magnetic field along with plate tectonic recycling.
So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed).
What part of that don't you understand?
Why do I even ask- you are a moron who apparently doesn't understand anything.
NO ONE KNOWS HOW OLD THE EARTH IS.
AND UNTIL WE KNOW HOW IT WAS FORMED TRYING TO DETERMINE ITS AGE IS A FOOL'S ERRAND.
Is that better?
At 11:37 AM,
Joe G said…
I am still waiting for POSITIVE evidence for your position.
and waiting- and waiting
At 11:37 AM,
Ghostrider said…
NO ONE KNOWS HOW OLD THE EARTH IS.
AND UNTIL WE KNOW HOW IT WAS FORMED TRYING TO DETERMINE ITS AGE IS A FOOL'S ERRAND.
The scientific community has lots of evidence for the age of the Earth Joe, as well as the mechanism of its formation. I've already provided them. Since you have zero contradicting data, why should anyone accept your evidence-free blustering assertion that the current scientific interpretation is wrong?
At 1:56 PM,
Joe G said…
The scientific community has lots of evidence for the age of the Earth Joe, as well as the mechanism of its formation.
No they have speculation based on the assumption.
IOW they assumed the Earth formed via blind, undirected processes so then they speculate on how old it should be given that.
However given all of the data it is clear that the Earth did not form via just a bunch of cosmic collisions.
As for the contradicting data- it is in the book "The Privileged Planet".
You ignore that data because you are ignorant and you think your ignorance means something.
Shit all you can do is blindly parrot whatever you accept.
At 9:37 PM,
blipey said…
Geez, I've lost track. Is this the thread where we find out the dimensions of a pillow-sized neutron star?
At 7:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Geez, I've lost track.
No you are just lost because you area loser.
Post a Comment
<< Home