Sunday, September 07, 2008

Explaining the Obvious

This is me. There are some things about myself that I should share to give you insight into who I am.

I believe that in order for something to be true, it must be proven. "Trust, but verify."

I believe that most people want you to think that they are smart, even if they aren't.

I believe that extensive study concerning anything with give you answers, if you look for them.

I believe that reading is the most important thing that you can do to gain knowledge.

I believe that some people believe that listening to themselves talk makes them smarter. I like to call those people "morons."

I said all this to ask these questions:

1. "If you searched for three lifetimes and have failed to find one single shred of evidence that supports your theory, would you continue to believe your theory?"

2. "If you wanted to prove that the Earth was warming, wouldn't an actual warming need to take place to prove your theory?"

Science. Yeah, it's science.

ANSWERS! I DEMAND ANSWERS!

28 comments:

Cedric Katesby said...

Ok, I'm here.

How old is the age of the Earth?

Two Dogs said...

This is a monumental step forward for you. The age of the Earth in what form? Or do you want to limit the debate to a certain time frame in a certain state? The age of living things? Or otherwise?

You define the limits, it's your choice.

Cedrick, I am Catholic, not stupid.

Two Dogs said...

Sorry, I just realized in my larger type that you do not have a "K" at the end of your name. My apologies.

Cedric Katesby said...

Two Dogs, I have nothing against Catholics.
Catholics normally accept mainstream science.

"While some theologians believe there is an inherent conflict between the Bible and science, popular Christian thought holds to the value of science in understanding the physical world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

"The age of the Earth in what form?"

I don't understand.
How old is the age of the Earth?

Two Dogs said...

Cedric, I have a very good grasp many aspects of science, not all but many. I am willingly offering you more fodder for your argument by offering up my Catholicism. You still will be unable to compete in this debate even with that knowledge. Your grasp of the facts is too small.

First, your question makes no sense, "How OLD is the AGE of the Earth?" That is not proper English. Basic grammar flub.

What I simply asked is "the Earth in what form?" That information is needed to answer your question.

Your response should be the age of the iron, when life began, when the mass first appeared, when the collision happened, the list is endless to the age of the Earth in its different forms. Which form? Define your question and you will get a definitive answer. Remember matter cannot be created by science. So which form? Choose wisely.

The first step in positing a theory is defining the question. That is science.

Cedric Katesby said...

Huh?

How old is the planet you and I are on?
(The one the locals call Earth.)

Why is this question hard for you?

Two Dogs said...

Again, Cedric, you must define the stage of Earth to which you are referring. You cannot produce matter, the matter of Earth has been around since the beginning of matter. Even before that matter was formed into the sphere that is now described as "Earth," it still existed. How long? Infinity. We cannot even pin down accurately when man entered the mix, how can we pin down the matter? So, the question has to be modified.

Do you see now, why I wanted you to move elsewhere, preferably e-mail? You are embarrassing yourself in front of other intelligent people by not even being able to phrase your question correctly. What you are doing is trolling and your reputation is well known as a global warming nutjob and an opponent to ID. Yes, I can see that this is important to you, and I am HELPING you. And I tried before when you "handed me my ass" at Reverse Vampyr's blog.

Back to your rephrasing of the question.

If you are talking about when the iron that is the core of our planet and all of the terrestrial planets was formed, then that narrows your question down somewhat, if you are talking about when the crust cooled, then that narrows it another 100 million years or so, then you have the era when the atmosphere formed, again the list is endless.

Define your form of the Earth, and I will respond to your question. However, AGE is not the question. Well, it is for idiots. The length of time in a form is your question, now pick a form.

Cedric Katesby said...

"What you are doing is trolling and your reputation is well known as a global warming nutjob and an opponent to ID."

You invited me here, remember?
If you want me to go, then I'll go.
No problem.

..............................

"You cannot produce matter, the matter of Earth has been around since the beginning of matter.'

All I'm asking you is how old you think the Earth is.
The Earth. Not matter in general.

"We cannot even pin down accurately when man entered the mix, how can we pin down the matter?"

All I'm asking you is how old you think the Earth is.
Not when "man entered the mix".

"If you are talking about when the iron that is the core of our planet and all of the terrestrial planets was formed, then that narrows your question down somewhat..."

Just the age of the Earth will be fine. We can leave the other planets for later.

"...if you are talking about when the crust cooled..."

Huh?

"...then you have the era when the atmosphere formed..."

(rolls eyes)

How old is the Earth?
Seriously.

Here's some help for you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Two Dogs said...

Cedric, you are always more than welcome to comment at my blog and my e-mail is posted right there on the sidebar. I have never banned anyone or run anyone off ever. The reason I stated that about your trolling is because I have tried to engage you in a discussion to HELP you to not sound so stupid in asking your question about "the age of the Earth." It is a ridiculous question to anyone that has a basic understanding of the universe or in a word, science. If you are trying to argue against ID with this line of questioning, it is impossible, you are trying to discredit religion NOT God, and that is beyond the limits of your evidence. You cannot disprove God, I have tried and it is blatantly, overwhelmingly obvious which of us is smarter. But if you are trying to find the answer for another reason with regards to science, you have to state your question properly. I shall assume it is the latter.

I know that you think that is an intelligent question about the age of the Earth, but I have pointed out that it is not. And have given you the reasons why it is not. You can ignore that and continue with your ridiculous question, but it is pointless, there is no answer to an improperly phrased question.

First of all you cannot even read your own link, which starts out with a discussion of matter of the universe. Which is the obvious starting point for the "age" of the Earth. Matter is matter. The first basic premise of science, of course it appears that you do not know that.

Another thing that you have to understand is to properly discuss the Earth, you have to know something about the other terrestrial planets, because they are of the same type. You know, made of rocks. You also have to know that our moon is similar, but without the iron core. So, my assumption would be that they were formed from the same matter, but that is unproven because we have not traveled to those other planets. You take into account all like things to try to triangulate your knowledge, Cedric. It gives you a larger and therefore more accurate test. Also, assumptions can be made and then proven wrong, you know, kinda like natural selection has been.

Now, if you truly want an answer to a question to the length of time that a certain form of the Earth has been in existence, you first have to determine what STATE you mean. The Earth that we know has an atmosphere, do you agree? That was what allowed for LIFE. However, the Earth existed long before that.

Also, you would agree that at some point the crust of the planet without an atmosphere had to cool, right? That is another point of reference.

Again, the list is endless in the many FORMS. What is your criteria for describing the Earth? Is it the appearance of life or is it the shape of the mass? Maybe that will help you ask your question intelligently.

Cedric, I certainly hope that this is not a path to proving that ID is untrue. 159 years was given to natural selection theories and still not a single piece of evidence, yet those against ID want the evidence in minutes? That is definitely NOT science. That is the blind faith of flat-earthers.

Cedric Katesby said...

"The reason I stated that about your trolling is because I have tried to engage you in a discussion to HELP you to not sound so stupid in asking your question about "the age of the Earth."

That doesn't make any sense.
How does you "helping me" make me a troll?

"It is a ridiculous question to anyone that has a basic understanding of the universe or in a word, science."

Nonsense.
It's no more ridiculous than asking "How old is this tree" or " How old is the sun" or "How old is your car".

Welcome to the wonderful world of Geochronology.
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=7XDn5SqE9jc

"If you are trying to argue against ID..."

No. I haven't mentioned ID.
Let's just stick to how old you think the Earth is, ok?

(Though please feel free to open a thread devoted to your thoughts on ID. Please. Pretty please.)

"You take into account all like things to try to triangulate your knowledge, Cedric. It gives you a larger and therefore more accurate test..."

Okayyyy....

So since you've presumably triangulated all that knowledge ahead of me, how about if we cut to the chase and you tell me how old you think the Earth is?

"Now, if you truly want an answer to a question to the length of time that a certain form of the Earth has been in existence, you first have to determine what STATE you mean."

Well can you give me the chronology of those states that you refer to?
A brief selection will do.
The examples that you've mentioned will do fine.

How old do you think the Earth(using the examples of the "forms" you've given previously) is?

....waits patiently....

Herb said...

A problem

leads to

A new working hypothesis

leads to

Design of an experiment

leads to

observations, observations, observations

leads to

conclusions

leads to

A new problem

Which leads to

A new working hypothesis

This, in a nutshell is the "Scientific Method" and is really the only right way for science to be performed, or even discussed. Neither evolution or creation can properly be observed, except that matter/energy all came from somewhere. No one can make something where nothing exists. I actually think the earth was created with Adam in mind, and since God didn't create Adam as a baby, it's just as logical to think he created the earth fully developed and ready to use.

Two Dogs said...

Herb, I do agree with your method and to a certain extent your acceptance of the creation of a fully formed earth, yet there are plenty that try to shout us down by promoting natural selection as the birth of man.

They do this by claiming that it is science, while never acknowledging that since Darwin produced On the Origin of the Species in 1859, not one single piece of evidence supports his theories. That is where my "three lifetimes" line above stems.

Thinking people that support the theory of natural selection should realize that their theory tells them that the world's inhabitants are in constant flux. There should be many billions times more failures of evolution to be found than successes. Odd, how they have not found one in the three lifetimes. Of course, they screech that what they are doing is science and I agree that it is. As performed by morons.

Gnutcase said...

Where did Cedric go? This could have been an interesting discussion but all the painful grandstanding prevented any dialogue from occurring.

Cedric, just pick a form. It doesn't matter when. According to estimates by Patterson it was around 4.5 billion years ago that it took on its raw form...but according to theology it was created in the beginning. There are even geologists and evolutionary biologists that are devoutly Christian...and they are quick to point out that nowhere in the Bible does it say God created Earth on the first day...just "in the beginning"...the time lapse between the beginning and day one is not possible to compute.

But yeah, the form of Earth is a complex discussion. 4.5 billion is along time ago but it's meaningless to life...because we still have to deal with a Mars-sized object bashing Earth to knock out debris to create the moon...and then a cooling...and then a forming of methane atmosphere...and then a transition to nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere. And then we have to deal with early life being bacterial and too small to be seen...and the Cambrian outburth (of most visible life) was only about 550 million years ago...so the first 4 billion years of Earth was all "prep-work"...

...that's according to science. According to relgion Earth was created in the beginning which is infinity ago...but since none of us here can comprehend how long 4.5 billion years is then I don't see where those two viewpoints conflict. The conflict comes at where man comes onto the scene. According to the Bible, that's 6000-ish years ago...but science shows evidence that's one to two (maybe even three) orders of magnitude beyond that.

Anyway, y'all pick a date and continue discussion. I want to watch. Cedric, I've known Two Dogs for 30 years. I admire him very much but I would still have no problem cheering you on if you offer a worthy debate against him. In other words, smack him around, Cedric. Give him "what for"...bust 'em up. Go Go Go.

Two Dogs said...

Thirty years is a long time to hang in there to see me proven wrong, Gnut. I didn't realize that my undefeated record went back that far. I'll have to check the stats. I do hope you are satisfied in the long run.

Strangely enough, I am rooting for Cedric as well.

MUD said...

Faith, Government and Science are mostly made up by man and defined by man. Just because there is a scientific process used, doesn't mean that the end result is absolute. We are limited by what we know today in any definition. Who knew in the 1840's that if you put together enough uranium it would blow Hiroshima off the map? Who knows if there is a god? Who knew that Communism would fail and that even the Chinese would come around to some form of an economy based on selling goods.
On the subject of time, there is a quote somewhere in the bible that says that a day is like the grains of sand on a beach to god (paraphrased) So, if someone stupid enough to try to say the world was made in 7 days or a million years, it would be at best a guess.
I guess what is important today is that we have a bunch of imperfect people with an imperfect Government trying to define using imperfect science something about faith that we just can't prove without faith. Either you have it or you don't. I will hope that McCain is elected, that the ice doesn't melt and that we can escape a war in Iran and Pakistan.
MUD

Two Dogs said...

Ya' know, MUD, what is fun about debating ID, evolution, and creation for me is that fact that I am Catholic and we believe (supposedly) the literal interpretation of the Bible. I have kinda had to break with the Catholic Church in that regard, HEATHEN!, being the type of person that requires proof of stuff to be convinced. That is why I do not adhere to Darwin's elementary and immature concept of evolution, either. Kinda weird that my regard for proof of stuff makes me disbelieve all explanations of the existence of Earth, huh? So, honestly, does the Earth actually exist because I can't find any reason for it to be here? I am currently working on a theory that has much more merit than evolution or creation that plainly states that if I cannot see something at all points in time, they fail to exist, but can be recalled into existence immediately when I think about them.

This will probably become to be known as "The Two Dogs is God and His Subsequent Evolution" theory. This theory will also PROVE that I can never die, no matter what happens. So far, it is a bulletproof theory. I have yet to even find someone to debate my theory with me because they cannot find any holes in the theory. This further reinforces the theory because it proves that I am all powerful and all knowing.

This theory is also forcing me to assume that you, MUD, are actually an alternative reality that I have created because I never served in the military and always wanted to.

Therefore, alternate personality number 458 is Mean Uncle Denny, hanging out in Tecumseh, Kansas, a place that I have never been, photographing stuff that interests me no end, eating fresh stuff that he grew himself, married to his sweetheart from forty years ago.

That personality also mows his yard, plays with a big black Labrador named Taco, the creation is very developed and avoids all the cancerous stuff brewing in my completely hardened heart.

Of course, the theory kinda disproves itself, not unlike theories of evolution. But, being the complete scientist, I shall never let that stop me from continuing to promote my theory.

But, Darwinists do not let their disregard of science shoe-horn them into anything, either. It's funny as Hell to me.

Screech! Natural Selection is SCIENCE!

Again, that was over the top, too. And the top keeps getting higher.

Gnutcase said...

I think the problem with debating your theory, is that we run the risk of you closing your eyes and forgetting about us followed by us fading out of existence. I'd prefer to be a yes man and guarantee my own existence. The only flaw with your theory...and it's not a flaw as much as an alternative armageddon...is that you say you won't die, but what if you get Alzheimers...and the more you forget, the more things just start un-existing or fading away. So I'll pay homage to your theory with offerings of St Johns Wort and Echinacea...or whatever it is that helps with memory and synapse firings according to those GNC con artists.

Two Dogs said...

Gnut, here's a terrifying thought, I have never been in a GNC. Uh oh!

Gnutcase said...

Well...if Cedric does return, I'm willing to help him out by having him research the work of Rosemary and Peter Grant...on quick, noticeable heritable traits that result in evolution of the galpagos finches beaks.

Then he can research discussions within the Dept of Energy concerning proof of evolution through an better understanding of homology.

The problem with debate on this topic is that evolution generally takes considerably longer than a human lifespan to demontrate and the theory has only been around 150 years and is trying to fill in the gaps in evidence for billions.

The same is true of plate tectonics. There is evidence to support that the himalayas were the result of India pushing into southern Asia...but no way to directly prove that it happened with 100% satisfaction.

Or let me restate about proof.
1) Scientist work on the premise that theories are never proven...they merely present evidence to support the theories to a greater degree of accuracy, or revise the theory to better fall in line with observation, or reject the theory outright.
2) With subjects like Natural Selection and Plate Tectonics, as well as topics like Quantum Theory and General Relativity, it takes such a degree of scientific specialization that it's tough to debate as a layman. non-science Layman (even well educated ones) are perfectly willing to believe in a God they can't see and accept His word...but they're not willing to accept physical evidence presented by scientists if they find it conflicts with those beliefs, often because the physical evidence is not easily understandable without considerable education on the subject before serious debate can occur. Likewise, scientists need to be educated on theology. But there are numerous evolutionary biologists and planetary geologists who are devout towards their beliefs in both God and their scientific fields and don't see conflicts...so there is room for middle ground as well.

Anyway, Cedric, if you come back, please let me know and I'll try to help you out as best as my limited knowledge lets me.

Two Dogs said...

Yeah, drop the finch beak thing. Proven that it is an adaptation of weather. Longer when dry, shorter when wet. Dead end. Not evolution or natural selection. Remember, evolution doesn't say that the same animals adapt to a changing climate, it says that a bacteria became man. Look for quantum leaps instead of a virus adapting to antibiotics.

Gnutcase said...

Dear Cedric...

When people say finch beak changes isn't evolution then you need to ask them how old THEY think the Earth is...because evolution DOES involve adaptation to weather and climate changes. Species don't evolve in hopes of becoming something else...they evolve to better adapt to their surroundings or to gain some advantage to provide their species a better chance to survive...and that quite often requires adapting to weather changes. The age of Earth topic comes into place...because going from single-celled creature to multi-cell didn't happen in a human lifetime...it didn't even happen in the entire time humans have been in existence. It took hundreds of millions of...nay over a billion...years to occur. And you can safely assume that there were lots of little "beak changes" along that evolutionary path.

Evolution is quite apparent when you find fossil record for things that failed to successfully adapt and move on during big changes in climate. Fossil evidence supports the fact that dinosaurs, even though they're gone now, existed 50+ times longer than homo sapiens have existed thus far. In fact, weather change is a very important obstacle to adapt to else a species as successful as dinosaurs would still be around. Evolution is about the only thing that can explain extinction...why we have so many fossils for things that have gone extinct. They didn't go extinct because they gotten eaten to the last one...or because they just looked around and decided it wasn't worth it any more. They went extinct because they failed to evolve in such a way as to survive changes to Earth (global cooling, global warming, catastrophic impacts, etc). Things like that have to be adapted to else you don't keep making more of you.

Anyway Cedric...don't take any crap from him. Tell him how it is. Tell him to explain the massive fossil record that you can see as opposed to the God you can't...but yet he claims he only believes in what he can see. Go ahead, Cedric...let him have it man.

With fondest love and affection,
Gnut

Cedric Katesby said...

Look Guys, all I'm asking for is a reasonable answer to a reasonable question.

How old do you think the Earth is?

Define it how you want.

"Herb, I do agree with your method and to a certain extent your acceptance of the creation of a fully formed earth..."

Ok. What do you accept as a "fully formed earth" and how old do you think it is?

gnutcase said: "Cedric, just pick a form. It doesn't matter when. According to estimates by Patterson it was around 4.5 billion years ago that it took on its raw form..."

Happy to work with this as well. Two Dogs, do you accept that in it's "raw form" that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

"There are even geologists and evolutionary biologists that are devoutly Christian...."

Indeed there are.

"...they are quick to point out that nowhere in the Bible does it say God created Earth on the first day...just "in the beginning"...the time lapse between the beginning and day one is not possible to compute."

That does not stop the YEC's out there from coming up with numbers such as 5500 years to 10,000years or even 20,000 years for the age of the earth.
http://www.creationmuseum.org/

(They actually raised 27 million dollars to build that thing.)

Two Dogs said...

Okay, Cedric, since you will not give me an intelligent question, I will give you some baselines for your stupid one. There is no way to create matter that we can ascertain, so the Earth has existed forever. That is infinity, I have no idea how to describe that in terms that you will understand.

The mass that became the Earth did form somewhat circa 4.5 billion years ago, yet it still couldn't sustain life.

The necessary environment to sustain lifeforms as we know them is only about 3.5 billion years old. Okay, now let's hear you bash intelligent design. Since that appears where this trainwwreck is headed.

Please try to come close to using science in your argument. Natural selection is foolish, though.

Tonight's lesson is going to have to be short.

Two Dogs said...

And Cedric, I wish that you would use the other comments tag, that way I could respond on my phone. Typing in blogger comments from my phone is like trying to corral badgers in the truck.

Lemme roam on up ahead in this debate and let you catch up, since you have contributed 11,000 words and not made a single point.

To follow the theory of natural selection, math tells us that there would be billions times more failures than successes. Why do we only find the fossils of the same species that we have always known. Was there some kind of inbred intelligence in all of the middle step creatures that forced them to go to the Mariana Trench and start digging? That could be the explanation that you seek.

Use the Haloscan, I need to shut down so I can work on growing my beard.

Cedric Katesby said...

"Okay, Cedric, since you will not give me an intelligent question..."

Scientists seem to think that it's an intelligent question.
If you don't think that it's an intelligent question then...

(shrug)

"There is no way to create matter that we can ascertain, so the Earth has existed forever.'

Didn't ask you about the creation of matter. Just the age of the Earth.

What's the age of your car?
It's made of matter too.

Does that mean that your car is as old as infinity?
Try putting that on your car insurance form and see if that works.

"The mass that became the Earth did form somewhat circa 4.5 billion years ago, yet it still couldn't sustain life."

Didn't ask you when the Earth could sustain life.
All I asked you was how old the Earth was.

Howe old is your car?
It's not the same as me asking when you started to drive it.

You think the Earth is 4.5 billion years? A straight answer?
Finally. Thank you.

"The necessary environment to sustain lifeforms as we know them is only about 3.5 billion years old.'

I didn't actually ask you about this but thanks for volunteering the information.

"Okay, now let's hear you bash intelligent design. Since that appears where this trainwwreck is headed."

Bash intelligent design?
I didn't mention it here at all.

If you want to discuss intelligent design then, please, open a new thread and we can discuss it. I'd be very interested to read your viewpoint and see how scientific it is.

Cedric Katesby said...

Switched to Haloscan.

Two Dogs said...

Again, Cedric, you must define the stage of Earth to which you are referring. You cannot produce matter, the matter of Earth has been around since the beginning of matter. Even before that matter was formed into the sphere that is now described as "Earth," it still existed. How long? Infinity. We cannot even pin down accurately when man entered the mix, how can we pin down the matter? So, the question has to be modified.

Do you see now, why I wanted you to move elsewhere, preferably e-mail? You are embarrassing yourself in front of other intelligent people by not even being able to phrase your question correctly. What you are doing is trolling and your reputation is well known as a global warming nutjob and an opponent to ID. Yes, I can see that this is important to you, and I am HELPING you. And I tried before when you "handed me my ass" at Reverse Vampyr's blog.

Back to your rephrasing of the question.

If you are talking about when the iron that is the core of our planet and all of the terrestrial planets was formed, then that narrows your question down somewhat, if you are talking about when the crust cooled, then that narrows it another 100 million years or so, then you have the era when the atmosphere formed, again the list is endless.

Define your form of the Earth, and I will respond to your question. However, AGE is not the question. Well, it is for idiots. The length of time in a form is your question, now pick a form.

Cedric Katesby said...

"What you are doing is trolling and your reputation is well known as a global warming nutjob and an opponent to ID."

You invited me here, remember?
If you want me to go, then I'll go.
No problem.

..............................

"You cannot produce matter, the matter of Earth has been around since the beginning of matter.'

All I'm asking you is how old you think the Earth is.
The Earth. Not matter in general.

"We cannot even pin down accurately when man entered the mix, how can we pin down the matter?"

All I'm asking you is how old you think the Earth is.
Not when "man entered the mix".

"If you are talking about when the iron that is the core of our planet and all of the terrestrial planets was formed, then that narrows your question down somewhat..."

Just the age of the Earth will be fine. We can leave the other planets for later.

"...if you are talking about when the crust cooled..."

Huh?

"...then you have the era when the atmosphere formed..."

(rolls eyes)

How old is the Earth?
Seriously.

Here's some help for you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Post a Comment