Religion II

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

The word ostracized does not seem to be in the article. Can you provide a link that presents the other side of the story? I've never heard of Judith Curry until now.

Have you got a broken thumb?
You can research the internet as well as I can.
You asked for one example. I provided it. Case closed.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Actor

The word ostracized does not seem to be in the article. Can you provide a link that presents the other side of the story? I've never heard of Judith Curry until now.

Judith Curry is not a climate denier per se. She might be better characterized as a science denier. Her concerns are that data is not always made timely available and attempts to connect climate change to catastrophic events are overblown. She believes the earth is warming - you'd have to hand in your science club card to deny something that is physically measurable - but at a much slower rate than models predict. She believes the extremes in warming scenarios have a low probability of actually occurring, and she suggests the efforts to reduce emissions will not have the dramatic effect some climate scientists predict. However, she has agreed that "efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction" should be pursued. I've never seen scientific research she has published, just a lot of opinion on her blog.

Ostracized is probably not the right word. Criticized, yes. Marginalized, yes. She's predicted the end of global warming since 1995, and each year has been hotter than the last. She claimed scientists lied about the decline in global temperature, mischaracterizing the decline of northern tree rings that has been discussed in IPCC papers.

The criticism of Judith Curry is that she only occasionally reads the research and does none of her own. She's been called "the most debunked person on the climate blogosphere." In the case of the deniers, they believe the overwhelming criticism of Curry is actually proof that she is on the right track. That the conspiracy of climate scientists to shout down anyone who disagrees is because they know they are peddling BS. Most of the people here are a lot like Judith Curry. They don't read the mass of information from actual researchers (and if they do they are as likely as not to misinterpret it), or they only read stuff from the deniers. On the other side is an old Georgian saying: When three people say you are drunk, go to sleep.

“Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.”
Samuel Johnson

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Here are a few rebuttals for starters:

Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.

Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.

Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.

Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work.

Here's Rich's reply below, thinking I must be some kind of rube...

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You know that carbon 14 dating can be used to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials only up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years old, right? Beyond that there isn't enough residual (Carbon 14 only has a half life of 5,730 years) to calculate the age of anything older. It's science.

Most older samples are aged using relative dating.

Science understands quite well how coal is formed. It involves decaying organics, heat and pressure and takes in the vicinity of 300 million years to naturally become "coal." In 6,000 years you couldn't bury the organics deeply enough to create enough pressure to squeeze out the water and cause the chemical changes that result in coal. And we know that coal that stays buried under pressure turns to graphite. The existence of graphite gives you an idea of the hundreds of millions of years it took.

Are you familiar with the term catogenesis? Did you know about 70 percent of current oil deposits derived from the Mesozoic period, which lasted from 65 million years to 150 million years ago? The natural process of making oil is in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years.

You're not going to find oil or coal that is billions of years old because chemical changes will continue. But, it takes 1-3 billion years to naturally form a diamond. Geologists believe that the diamonds in all of Earth's commercial diamond deposits were formed in the mantle and delivered to the surface by deep-source volcanic eruptions. By the way, despite the written record of turning coal into diamonds (aka, the Superman comic books) a diamond from coal is extremely rare. More science.

The Carbon-14 arguments you offer are totally red herrings, and with all due respect, what I've said to boxcar applies here as well. Present facts based on real observation. If you want to argue science, understand the science.

Now, since the foundational question has been asked, here's the "real" question being posed to Rich below....

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

The reason I brought up Carbon-14 is there's too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata. With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in the natural or original position with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

I must have missed your reply to my question here, Rich.....No, I can't find it anywhere. It's funny how you jumped all over my initial C-14 post as a "red herring", but since you've seen the purpose of the question, you evade to answer the REAL question posed here. Always remember Rich, we're peers, if you believe we're not, you're in for a rude awakening....Let's not go there, just answer my question, or are you avoiding in the same way you accuse Boxcar?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

A law, by definition, is true every time. I don't mean this in a personal way, but what you write shows such a small understanding of science (and an accompanying infallibility about your thinking) that explaining it would be the equivalent of untangling a million miles of tangled string. Impossible, even given a lifetime. You simply misconstrue in a way that would even leave Neil Degrasse Tyson open mouthed. This isn't a disagreement about philosophy. You are simply incorrect in your view. Natural laws are not evolving. The result of natural laws is change, but it is because the laws stayed in place that change occurs. You keep insisting that completely erroneous statements that you make are true.

If what you say is true, then the physical laws of the universe must have existed before the physical universe did. The physical laws must be eternal! These physical laws must have caused the universe to come into existence. But on the other hand, how could physical laws existed, apart from the existence of the physical universe? Laws govern things. But if the physical universe didn't exist, what were these laws governing?

The only other option is that the physical laws did evolve over time to become what we know them to be now; therefore, the laws themselves gradually changed (evolved right along with the evolutionary process) over the ages, and since many scientists believe this evolutionary process is still ongoing, it stands to reason these laws will undergo further evolution (change).

Look at a picture of yourself when you were two and look at yourself now. You changed, just like the universe changes. But you broke no law in changing your height, weight or appearance. The fact you can't discern between a physical law and a theory is simply sad. Pride in your ignorance is sadder.

Before you insult anyone's intelligence, may I suggest that you consider the pathetic condition of your own mental acuity? Your analogy is a non sequitur because our discussion is not about anyone or any entity breaking any laws! The discussion is about the laws of nature or laws of physics actually evolving into what we know them to be today, thereby rendering these laws to be mutable in nature and, therefore, not absolute. To deny this is to deny evolution!

The absolute truth of how the universe operates and changes is the same whether or not you believe in Jesus. How the sun works, how the universe expands - those are things that we all can know. Watching a cell divide and change is viewable as well. How it does it requires understanding, and understanding only comes with exploration, not change in physical laws. Stunning you can't discern such a simple concept. What absolute truth about the way the universe works do you think science is fooling you on?

By your definition, everything is flawed because the universe is not static. Everything God made is flawed. I hope he is thoroughly pissed off at you for your criticism of his universe and how it works.

God did not create everything flawed. He created everything perfect. Could any workman be pleased with his work and say it "was very good" if he knew his workmanship was filled with flaws? The reason the universe is what is today is because of the entrance of sin into this world. God cursed his entire creation due to the entrance of sin into his pristine, perfect world. The entire universe (creation) to this day is "anxious" and "groaning" to be free of this curse!

Rom 8:18-22
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
NASB

Sin corrupted the entire universe. This is why there is suffering, sorrow, pain, misery and death. And as the text says above, God subjected all creation to futility.

And, yes, when Christ returns to judge the world and to destroy this present universe and create a new one, all will be static because all, once again, will be perfect. There will be only joy, peace and love in Christ's kingdom, which means there will never be sorry, pain, suffering, misery or death. There will be no sun in our solar system because there will never be night -- darkness will never fall on Christ's kingdom because the glory of Christ himself will continually shine on all his subjects. No one will ever age in Christ's kingdom. All occupants will be ageless, etc., etc. There will be perfect unity among all God's people in Christ's kingdom because God's love will be perfected in everyone's souls. There will never again be discord, discontent, disagreement, irrationality or any other thing would divide the people from Christ or from each other. And since perfect love, casts out all fear, the occupants of the kingdom will never know fear again. They will not fear one another or fear any animal or will any beast fear them, etc., etc. In short, there will be no changes in the kingdom because Christ is perfect and his people will be perfect for all eternity.

So, you see, Mr. Halv, this universe, it's laws or its high priests who interpret these laws for us peons are the not source of absolute truth. For even this universe is passing away. It will soon die. Conversely, Jesus said,

Mark 13:31
31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
NASB

It's no wonder Jesus also said that, [b]...I am the Truth/b]. As in absolute truth!

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The virgin Mary fable is lost on me. That you have to take up with one of the Catholics here.

You mocking others for "fables" is rich beyond all of my dreams. Keep up the good work!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You mocking others for "fables" is rich beyond all of my dreams. Keep up the good work!

Perhaps you'd like to share one of your "dreams" with us, and tell me what fable did I concoct in your dream?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Here's Rich's reply below, thinking I must be some kind of rube...



Now, since the foundational question has been asked, here's the "real" question being posed to Rich below....


I must have missed your reply to my question here, Rich.....No, I can't find it anywhere. It's funny how you jumped all over my initial C-14 post as a "red herring", but since you've seen the purpose of the question, you evade to answer the REAL question posed here. Always remember Rich, we're peers, if you believe we're not, you're in for a rude awakening....Let's not go there, just answer my question, or are you avoiding in the same way you accuse Boxcar?

I was avoiding what I thought was the beginning of a ridiculous argument - my words. First, cite your source for the statement that it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. The anonymous scientists and laboratories argument doesn't cut it for me.

Second, your attempt at the AHA moment was disingenuous. You said Carbon-14 in coal suggests thousands, not millions of years. And I said, given the half life of carbon-14, of course. Apparently, what you meant is that there is carbon-14 in coal that is supposedly millions of years old, but given the half life of carbon-14 it must only be thousands of years old. One question you might answer. How old exactly is the coal or oil or diamond you are referencing and how did you come to that answer?

Your slavishness to brevity in this case caused the misunderstanding. But let's assume I now know what you mean. Same question. Give me the peer reviewed, scientific journal article that shows carbon-14 in ancient strata of coal is higher than we would predict given what we know about how carbon-14 behaves.

I'd offer that you should think about it before making it personal. If you want to have a discussion based on real data and validated information from a legitimate scientific journal - that excludes the Creation Studies Institute - fine. If you believe you have the smoking gun evidence on the young earth, let's see it. I can assure you I'll respond.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Perhaps you'd like to share one of your "dreams" with us, and tell me what fable did I concoct in your dream?

Perhaps.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I was avoiding what I thought was the beginning of a ridiculous argument - my words. First, cite your source for the statement that it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. The anonymous scientists and laboratories argument doesn't cut it for me.

Second, your attempt at the AHA moment was disingenuous. You said Carbon-14 in coal suggests thousands, not millions of years. And I said, given the half life of carbon-14, of course. Apparently, what you meant is that there is carbon-14 in coal that is supposedly millions of years old, but given the half life of carbon-14 it must only be thousands of years old. One question you might answer. How old exactly is the coal or oil or diamond you are referencing and how did you come to that answer?

Your slavishness to brevity in this case caused the misunderstanding. But let's assume I now know what you mean. Same question. Give me the peer reviewed, scientific journal article that shows carbon-14 in ancient strata of coal is higher than we would predict given what we know about how carbon-14 behaves.

I'd offer that you should think about it before making it personal. If you want to have a discussion based on real data and validated information from a legitimate scientific journal - that excludes the Creation Studies Institute - fine. If you believe you have the smoking gun evidence on the young earth, let's see it. I can assure you I'll respond.

I've given numerous references in past posts in the last 2 years, which others have responded to, but not you. As far as brevity goes, it's for quality sake, not your long drawn out diatribes of pomposity that literally lulls the reader to sleep. However, I enjoy your writings when it comes to horse racing. I think you should just stick with that, it's what you do well and KNOW what you're talking about......This Religious thread always exposes your weaknesses, yet you refuse to change, but that's your choice.......Since you have neglected to answer my C-14 question, and chose to deflect and misdirect, our conversation's in this thread have now ended.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Perhaps.

You never disappoint, troll!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What is your source for this bit of data? A peer reviewed journal, perhaps? Possibly Answers in Genesis? Is it in scripture?

To paraphrase the Fox, "Is your thumb working"? From what I have gleaned it appears most scientists believe as I say -- the universe had a beginning and will have an end. The universe's energy supply is not endless -- not infinite. The universe is not a perpetual motion "machine". It will run out of usable energy to sustain itself.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You never disappoint, troll!

Oh my...I think I may have gotten to you there...

Like I said, keep up the good work!

[PaceAdvantage]

BTW, as long as I am a troll...

So, Virgin Mary at Fatima = fable...yet Trinity in OT = fact.

More trolling:

Is Jesus Christ the ultimate goalpost move of all time?

I mean, after all, if you can't fulfill the Messianic Requirements of the Old Testament, do away with them and create new ones! SCORE!

How's that for some trolling?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If what you say is true, then the physical laws of the universe must have existed before the physical universe did. The physical laws must be eternal! These physical laws must have caused the universe to come into existence. But on the other hand, how could physical laws existed, apart from the existence of the physical universe? Laws govern things. But if the physical universe didn't exist, what were these laws governing?

The only other option is that the physical laws did evolve over time to become what we know them to be now; therefore, the laws themselves gradually changed (evolved right along with the evolutionary process) over the ages, and since many scientists believe this evolutionary process is still ongoing, it stands to reason these laws will undergo further evolution (change).

I can only say that in each of your posts, there is a WTF moment in which I have to question how you could believe some of the things you say.

It is obvious that in the absence of a physical universe, there are no physical laws. Let's assume for the sake of this argument, that God created the physical universe. The creation of that universe and the assignment of the laws that govern that universe occurred simultaneously. If what I say is true, there is no reason why the laws of the universe had to precede the existence of the universe, and you have to explain where such laws were being held in anticipation of the creation of that universe. Now perhaps God thought up those laws well before he blinked the universe into existence. "I think I'll create gravity in my new universe and things will fall down. That's the ticket." The universe functions in accordance with laws that lead to observations - you know, things we can see. And the universe will continue to function in accordance with those laws until the universe ceases to exist. Why is that so hard to comprehend? The fact that you can't see the illogic of your statement that laws existed that governed something before there was something to govern, should form the basis for an article in Psychology Today.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Before you insult anyone's intelligence, may I suggest that you consider the pathetic condition of your own mental acuity? Your analogy is a non sequitur because our discussion is not about anyone or any entity breaking any laws! The discussion is about the laws of nature or laws of physics actually evolving into what we know them to be today, thereby rendering these laws to be mutable in nature and, therefore, not absolute. To deny this is to deny evolution!

I would offer a new law of the universe. It is impossible to insult your intelligence.

I'll ask again. What law (not theory, but law) has changed or evolved? I've maintained consistently that the laws governing the universe have not changed, but the explanations for what we observe have. Try to follow this. The universe is expanding. We know that because we can observe that. Hubble's Constant shows the rate of expansion of the universe. Hubble's Constant can change, not based on some change in physical law, but based on our ability to more accurately measure the variables involved in calculating the Constant. I have no faith at all you will be able to understand that Hubble's Constant changing does not mean a law of the universe changed. But I have great faith you'll misconstrue it.

In the same regard evolution did not change any law of the universe. It simply became a more likely explanation for our observations and measurements. The universe didn't change. Man's knowledge expanded.

Originally Posted by boxcar

God did not create everything flawed. He created everything perfect. Could any workman be pleased with his work and say it "was very good" if he knew his workmanship was filled with flaws? The reason the universe is what is today is because of the entrance of sin into this world. God cursed his entire creation due to the entrance of sin into his pristine, perfect world. The entire universe (creation) to this day is "anxious" and "groaning" to be free of this curse!

Right. So without the creation of sin, the universe would not be expanding? Theories change because Eve sinned? That's the flaw? Perhaps what happens on Alpha Centauri is less dependent on what Eve did than you might believe.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Sin corrupted the entire universe. This is why there is suffering, sorrow, pain, misery and death. And as the text says above, God subjected all creation to futility.

A new theory. The universe is expanding because of sin and futility.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, you see, Mr. Halv, this universe, it's laws or its high priests who interpret these laws for us peons are the not source of absolute truth.

Where did you get the idea that explaining the observations of the universe is part of a search for absolute religious truth? There is mutual exclusivity between the idea that Jesus is the absolute truth and the universe expands at the rate calculated by Hubble's Constant. The rate of expansion of the universe is as close to a fact as we know it, but it is not the alpha and omega of absolute truth, nor is it a refutation of whatever you want to believe about Jesus.

One other thing. Science does not have priests, high or otherwise. They do have fellows though.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Since you have neglected to answer my C-14 question, and chose to deflect and misdirect, our conversation's in this thread have now ended.

I offered to answer your question. I simply asked for the reference you are using to base your conclusion. The fact that you may have posted them previously does me no good at all.

My 12 years of religious indoctrination could have been by incompetents. But it still colors my knowledge. Same with my long experience with science topics. Disagreement doesn't necessarily mean someone is wrong.

Your choice to quit.