"What if you're wrong?" - Richard Dawkins

[rob19]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




This is the guy I was talking about.

The criticism section on that page was 3 times as big as the actual explanation

Criticism

His model has been criticized by other scientists and old earth creationists such as
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and Samuel R. Conner.
^{To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.}
Humphreys has replied to Ross and Conner's critiques.
^{To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.}

On Humphreys' thousands-of-years-old universe, in 1998 physicist
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
wrote that Humphreys "has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
that were left over from the formation of the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
that supplies the more remote hypothesized
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets."
^{To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.}

[
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
]Sea Salt Issue

Thomas also criticised Humphreys' idea that there is "not enough sodium in the sea" for a several billion year old sea, writing, "Humphreys finds estimates of oceanic salt accumulation and deposition that provide him the data to "set" an upper limit of 62 million years. But modern geologists do not use erratic processes like these for clocks. It's like someone noticing that (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is four feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. The Earth is older than two days, so there must be a flaw with the "snow" dating method, just as there is with the "salt" method."
^{To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.}

[
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
]Helium Problems

Geologist Kevin Henke has criticised Humphreys for stating that "zircons from the Fenton Hill rock cores... contain too much radiogenic helium to be billions of years old."
<sup>To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.</sup>
Henke wrote that the equations in Humphreys' work "are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these 'dating' equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."
^{To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.}
Humphreys has replied to Henke's criticisms.
<sup>To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.</sup>

[
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
]Earth Cooling Model

Scientists Glenn Morton and George L Murphy have dismissed Humphreys' cooling model as "wrong" because "it is ineffective, it is falsified by observational data, and it is theologically flawed." First, in a classical model for a harmonic oscillator (like a particle oscillating in a crystal), "the particle does not lose energy to the cosmic expansion." Second, Humphreys' model "is too slow to be useful to the creationist agenda." Thirdly, "there would be visible effects in the spectra of light emitted during the Flood, including those from stars a few thousand light years away in our own galaxy. A change in the energy levels of atoms (which this idea would entail) would change the frequencies at which light is emitted in a fashion that would be observable. The lack of such observations rules out Humphreys' cooling mechanism as a reasonable possibility." Lastly, they criticized it for contradicting the theological foundation Humphreys uses in another publication.

[Statler Waldorf]

Why can't no one have an answer?

Simply because holding to axioms that you have no reason for holding to given your worldview is irrational. Are you really going to admit that only the Christian worldview is rational?

Like I said, just because you say God does these things, doesn't make it true.

Me saying it no, but me proving it through logical syllogisms and negation as I have done certainly does prove it is true.

You don't have proof. There's a reason people ask "do you believe in God?", and not "do you know about God", because the existence of God can't be proven, nor disproven.

You are confusing truth with persuasion, the number of people who are persuaded by or who believe a certain argument is completely irrelevant to the truth of that argument. You asserting there is no proof of God is also irrelevant since I have already provided a completely valid and thus un-refuted argument that does prove God exists.

The criticism section on that page was 3 times as big as the actual explanation

Of course it was; the whole article was written by an atheist and the majority of the criticism section has nothing to do with Humphrey’s cosmological model. I am just appalled at the fact you seem to believe that a user-generated site like Wikipedia proves anything at all. Humphrey’s has addressed every single one of those criticisms in both his book and subsequent articles. I don’t even subscribe to his model, but your “refutation” of it is just ridiculous.

[TheWalrus]

No, all you did was incorrectly alter the form of the argument from a valid syllogism into something that no longer contained an antecedent or consequent in premise 1. This does nothing to prove your point because the argument is no longer the same as the one I used. It would be like doing the following…

P1 If light didn’t exist, I could not see.
P2 I can see
C. Therefore light exists.

That’s a completely valid and sound syllogism; formally it is identical to mine. Now what you did was…
P1 I can see
P2 For seeing to be possible for me, light must exist
C. light exists.

P1 no longer contains an antecedent or a consequent and P2 no longer either affirms the antecedent or denies the consequent. So you have merely rearranged the argument into an invalid syllogism and then acted as if that refuted my argument when my initial syllogism was completely valid. So you didn’t prove anything either way.

If you’ll notice though, the “light” syllogism above is very similar to mine; light existing is one of the necessary preconditions to seeing. So if a person can see they can have confidence light exists. God is one of the preconditions of intelligibility, so if a person can gain knowledge they can have confidence that God exists.

Nice job dodging the point. It is still up to you to prove the statement "knowledge is possible" is valid. The statement cannot simultaneously be used as proof that God exists and God existing be the proof that the statement is true. That's a tautology.

Also, you haven't defined "knowledge."

[CashInFist]

The criticism section on that page was 3 times as big as the actual explanation

Do scientists EVER agree? On ANYTHING?!?!? LOL

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

Also, the center of the universe would have to closely be at the origination of the BIG BANG.

[JackFinfan]

That just proves right there science will never get you truth or even certainty whereas religion can.

O man this is pure gold. It all comes down to this. Some people believe and some people don't, but there will never be true certainty in either direction. If you're 100% certain in your own mind, I applaud you. But realize that your certainty isn't based on evidence, facts, and common sense, but instead relies on faith.

Also, I never called you ignorant, I believe I said that you are either full of ignorance or denial to believe the Earth is 6000 years old. After reading your posts after my statement, I have to conclude that it's 100% denial.

[JackFinfan]

It’s not up to me to prove radiometric dating doesn’t work; it’s up to you to establish that it has ever worked in the first place. Point to one instance where a rock of empirically known age was dated accurately using radiometric dating. If the method doesn’t work on rocks of known age, then to assert that it works on rocks of unknown age is completely absurd. You yourself said science is based on skepticism, so I am merely being skeptical of your dating method until you can demonstrate it actually works.

Waldorf's 5 d's of debating...dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge. Rob already explained to you the merits of radiometric dating, now it's your turn to debunk or provide evidence to the contrary. But you won't and you can't, because like I said before, you're in a complete state of denial about anything that contradicts your beliefs.

[Statler Waldorf]

Nice job dodging the point. It is still up to you to prove the statement "knowledge is possible" is valid. The statement cannot simultaneously be used as proof that God exists and God existing be the proof that the statement is true. That's a tautology.

Well the definition of knowledge is usually along the lines of, “acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.”

It’s actually rather easy to prove knowledge is possible, it’s through negation. Any argument to the contrary is self-refuting because it presupposes knowledge is possible. Therefore even questioning whether knowledge is possible is indirectly proving that knowledge is possible. It’s very similar to how you can prove your own mind exists, the very act of doubting your own existence actually proves your own mind’s existence because your mind existing is a necessary precondition of the act of doubting. These forms of indirect proofs are fundamental to logical reasoning because they prevent an infinite linear regression of proofs.

O man this is pure gold. It all comes down to this. Some people believe and some people don't, but there will never be true certainty in either direction. If you're 100% certain in your own mind, I applaud you. But realize that your certainty isn't based on evidence, facts, and common sense, but instead relies on faith.

Are you absolutely certain that absolute certainty is impossible?

You actually have demonstrated you live by far more blind faith than I ever could, after all you seem to believe that a dating method that has never been empirically verified on rocks of known age somehow magically works on rocks of unknown age. Now that is truly blind faith!

Also, I never called you ignorant, I believe I said that you are either full of ignorance or denial to believe the Earth is 6000 years old. After reading your posts after my statement, I have to conclude that it's 100% denial.

Why is it denial? You haven’t provided me with a single reason to believe the earth is billions of years old besides making some sort of appeal to majority opinion and then to some dating method that has never been shown to work on rocks of known age. I am the won in denial? I was really hoping you’d give me a bit more to sink my teeth into.

Waldorf's 5 d's of debating...dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.

That’s only four Ds since you used dodge twice.

Rob already explained to you the merits of radiometric dating,

No he didn’t, he explained the theory behind it to me (something I was already fully aware of mind you), I simply asked for proof that it works in the real world. I am still waiting for that empirical evidence; I want to see the method work on rocks of empirically verifiable age, is that too much to ask for? I feel like the kid asking to go backstage at a magic show with the way you guys are acting.

now it's your turn to debunk or provide evidence to the contrary. But you won't and you can't, because like I said before, you're in a complete state of denial about anything that contradicts your beliefs.

There’s nothing to debunk yet, you still need to prove the method actually works. You also never answered my question, if different radiometric isotopic methods produce discordant dates would you admit that disproved the theory?

[JackFinfan]

That’s only four Ds since you used dodge twice.

Did I use dodge twice? wow you sure got me.......lmao

[JackFinfan]

Why is it denial? You haven’t provided me with a single reason to believe the earth is billions of years old besides making some sort of appeal to majority opinion and then to some dating method that has never been shown to work on rocks of known age. I am the won in denial? I was really hoping you’d give me a bit more to sink my teeth into.

Alright, you want to "sink your teeth." Since you're the one who is "absolutely certain" then provide me with evidence suggesting the Earth is 6000 years old. It seems like you're pretty confident so have at it. My guess is you won't, because your only strategy is to play devil's advocate, dodge, and misrepresent arguments. Lets see you put some stuff out there for us to critique.

[TheWalrus]

Well the definition of knowledge is usually along the lines of, “acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.”

It’s actually rather easy to prove knowledge is possible, it’s through negation. Any argument to the contrary is self-refuting because it presupposes knowledge is possible. Therefore even questioning whether knowledge is possible is indirectly proving that knowledge is possible. It’s very similar to how you can prove your own mind exists, the very act of doubting your own existence actually proves your own mind’s existence because your mind existing is a necessary precondition of the act of doubting. These forms of indirect proofs are fundamental to logical reasoning because they prevent an infinite linear regression of proofs.

The cogito is true outside the "preconditions of intelligibility", which is entirely the point of it. All it says that if you think you must exist, not that your senses are reliable or that the laws of nature are predictable or any of that. It is not "knowledge" as you're using the term. Try again.