If The Age of The Earth is Billions of Years ...

[yossarian22]

That is a lot of responses to come back to and I don't really have the effort to respond to them all. I will say that it's rather funny that you are trying to explain calculus

Its basic algebra. Nowhere near calculus.

instead of addressing the very simple observation that short-term does not equal long-term. Do you know what a logarithmic curve looks like?

Do you?
We transform the unit. Its like going from inches to meters. Radioactive decay is not linear at all, but we can make appear as such for the purpose of calculations

If you were to only measure the short term, you would have the impression of near linearity.

Yes, the data would look linear on a graph. But we can tell if a relationship is non-linear or linear with a residual plot

But it a logarithmic curve actually linear in the long-term? Very simple concept here.

Hence why we plot residuals. Here is what a linear equation looks like on a residual chart

Notice how the data is randomly scattered above the line y=0

Now here is what the residual plot would look like if the data was non linear, even if our data looked linear when graphed

There is a clear curve in this data. While it may have looked linear when graphed, it clearly is not.

 

[kmkemp]

Its basic algebra. Nowhere near calculus.

Is that not totally beside the point? I hope you don't think that makes you look smart! All I'm saying is that I have a Calc book in the next room and that is definitely in there.

Do you?
We transform the unit. Its like going from inches to meters. Radioactive decay is not linear at all, but we can make appear as such for the purpose of calculations

Thanks for cluing me in!!!

Yes, the data would look linear on a graph. But we can tell if a relationship is non-linear or linear with a residual plot

Hence why we plot residuals. Here is what a linear equation looks like on a residual chart

Notice how the data is randomly scattered above the line y=0

Now here is what the residual plot would look like if the data was non linear, even if our data looked linear when graphed

There is a clear curve in this data. While it may have looked linear when graphed, it clearly is not.

Wow dude. That is a lot of explanation to still totally avoid the point. Short term consistency does not equal or even imply long-term consistency. It doesn't matter how you want to transform it or otherwise display it. This isn't even a point that requires math.

 

[kmkemp]

No. You're intentionally seeking to denigrate the evidence. It's a petty tactic. :yes:

Show me the evidence that I've denigrated.

 

[Autodidact]

That is a lot of responses to come back to and I don't really have the effort to respond to them all. I will say that it's rather funny that you are trying to explain calculus instead of addressing the very simple observation that short-term does not equal long-term. Do you know what a logarithmic curve looks like? If you were to only measure the short term, you would have the impression of near linearity. But it a logarithmic curve actually linear in the long-term? Very simple concept here.

And to autodidact... I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Check some of the old polls. We're not even on the same page. I am simply pointing out that dating techniques are not perfect. I don't think I am flying in the face of all the world's scientists, but rather pointing out a simple inherit flaw that any scientist would recognize. When you have so much faith in science as to overlook its weaknesses (and there are many), then you have misplaced it.

So you agree that the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old?

 

[yossarian22]

Is that not totally beside the point? I hope you don't think that makes you look smart! All I'm saying is that I have a Calc book in the next room and that is definitely in there.

So?

Wow dude. That is a lot of explanation to still totally avoid the point. Short term consistency does not equal or even imply long-term consistency. It doesn't matter how you want to transform it or otherwise display it. This isn't even a point that requires math.

Your points would be correct if we were dealing with a complex system, but we are not.

 

[painted wolf]

is there any evidence other than wishfull thinking that shows that radioactive decay hapens in fits and starts?

Gradualism is accepted by all branches of science because there is no reasonable evidence against it.

wa:do

 

[yossarian22]

is there any evidence other than wishfull thinking that shows that radioactive decay hapens in fits and starts?

Nope. There is no evidence whatsoever. Otherwise radioactive decay would not be considered a first order reaction

 

[McBell]

Wow dude. That is a lot of explanation to still totally avoid the point. Short term consistency does not equal or even imply long-term consistency. It doesn't matter how you want to transform it or otherwise display it. This isn't even a point that requires math.

Sounds more like you did not understand any of it and therefore have dismissed it.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's the thing. Physicists are really, really stupid. They can barely drive to the office. Geologists too, not very bright, really. It's kind of sad. And as for biologists; it's a wonder they can find their shoes. They need some people who know nothing about their field, who barely understand what radioactivity is, to explain to them why they're all wrong. It's nice that there are a lot of young, arrogant Christians around who are willing to help them, don't you think?

 

[Autodidact]

O.K. radiometric dating. Pretend you're like me and can barely grasp it while someone's explaining it to you, after which it slips away like that actress's name that was in that one movie, you know the one. Let's say they do it by putting some monkeys on the roof and counting the coconuts that land ten stories below, O.K? So they count the coconuts. And they use that to calculate the age. Then they get another bunch of monkeys, and it comes out the same. Hmmm, intriguing. Then they do it with a different kind of monkey, or something, and peanuts instead of coconuts. Same result. hey, maybe there's something to this. Let's think of something that we know happens every year, just to check. Hey, tree rings! Everyone known trees grow one ring a year. Let's find a really old tree and check the results. How about that--same result! The monkey throwing hypothesis seems to have something to it. What else. Lake varves--excellent. Not only do they lay down two per year, but there are places with 90,000 of them. Heck, there's a place with a couple million of them. Let's test it against those lake varves. Whoa, same result. Coral growth rates. Same results. Every darned thing we can think of to count comes out the same as radiometric dating, and all the different kinds of radiometric dating come out the same as each other. Why do you think that is? Not once, but every time. Over and over and over again. So, those assumptions--think they're borne out at all? The Green River Shale alone has millions of varves. That's right, millions of annual sedimentary layers. And they come out to the same date as if you use radiometric dating on them. Maybe those physicists aren't so stupid after all.

 

[kmkemp]

Here's the thing. Physicists are really, really stupid. They can barely drive to the office. Geologists too, not very bright, really. It's kind of sad. And as for biologists; it's a wonder they can find their shoes. They need some people who know nothing about their field, who barely understand what radioactivity is, to explain to them why they're all wrong. It's nice that there are a lot of young, arrogant Christians around who are willing to help them, don't you think?

If you had this opinion, you probably should just never debate. Just believe everything you read in a science journal without ever thinking about it. It doesn't take much knowledge or effort to just say "this guy is smarter than you so he's right".

Nonetheless, I haven't said anything that a scientist wouldn't tell you himself. I mean, you can continue to say "there is no evidence that it is not the case that the short-term is indicative of the long-term", but a lack of current evidence means nothing in the end really. We are not omniscient beings that can see all factors backward in a past that we have no documentation of. As much as we would like it to be so, we just cannot have a great degree of certainty about all possible factors in a distant past.

It's pretty funny that you try to lump Christians together, revealing your bias, especially considering that I have already said that I believe in an old Earth. Still, I don't worship science, because, just like all other things in life, it has its shortcomings. In this case, the limit of the reliability of its assumptions. "Lack of evidence" has been present all too many times in the past. It's led to many false conclusions before, but you seem unwilling to accept that "those smart scientists" could have a wrong theory. Pretty comical considering the track record.

 

[yossarian22]

Nonetheless, I haven't said anything that a scientist wouldn't tell you himself. I mean, you can continue to say "there is no evidence that it is not the case that the short-term is indicative of the long-term", but a lack of current evidence means nothing in the end really.

A wise sentiment in general, but applies to complex systems only. Even with as few as 20 data points we an be confident in an assesment of linearity.