Time is the 4th dimension

[zaangalewa]

Dalia
It does exist as things do change over time
. A star eventually runs out of its hydrogen .
Black holes inc in entropy and never dec
. Our own moon has more crators than the past

Time (clock) as the present, past and future is a conception/invention of the human brain .

What's nonsense, because a tree grows and dies also without any human brain-power.

 

[Wuwei]

Radiocarbon dating does. I've said this before.

Yes you "said" carbon dating backs up the bible before, but you ignored instrument limitations. and were very naïve..
K40-Ar40 dating gives the earth as billions of years old.

You are so wrong. Sir Francis Bacon, a creation scientist, came up with the Scientific Method -- Sir Francis Bacon - creation.com. Next.

It doesn't matter who came up with the scientific method. Creationists are not using it now. And Sir Francis Bacon had no idea what radiological dating would later show.

 

[Dusty]

Time doesn't actually exist. It's simply a concept created to explain how we perceive the chronology of events.

It’s official: time doesn’t exist

So what time features should we feed our ML models?

towardsdatascience.com

Time exist whether we are there to describe it or not so that description fails

 

[james bond]

All Christians "believe" in evolution

Most Christians believe in creation.

All Christians believe that god created the world(s) and the heaven(s) - all visible and invisible realities - all known and [still] unknown things.

You just do not get real science.

One of the most superidiotic abstrahotic nonsense discussion is the neverending English discussion "creation vs evolution".

How many times are you going to lie and have lied as a creationist evolutionist? It doesn't even make sense.

You just do not understand real science.

 

[james bond]

It doesn't matter who came up with the scientific method. Creationists are not using it now. And Sir Francis Bacon had no idea what radiological dating would later show.

Jealous? Envy is one of the seven deadly sins. We know you are a liar because creationists use it with C14 dating. Can I use that to date rocks?

The biggest thing I can expose you for is you don't even know how to use radiometric dating. Else you would be able to explain it to us here. Who created it? Was he an atheist?

Finally, it does matter as Sir Francis Bacon was a creationist.

 

[Wuwei]

Jealous? Envy is one of the seven deadly sins. We know you are a liar because creationists use it with C14 dating. Can I use that to date rocks?

Creationists misuse C14 dating. They don't understand the noise floor of the instruments.

The biggest thing I can expose you for is you don't even know how to use radiometric dating. Else you would be able to explain it to us here. Who created it? Was he an atheist?

I already explained it some time ago, but you didn't get it. Look up "noise floor" in Wikipedia. Because of that, the confidence interval at the limit of accuracy of a C14 spectrometer goes to infinity. The values that creationists use do not take the noise into consideration. Also try to find the published confidence interval that creationists get when they use C14 dating with diamonds.

Finally, it does matter as Sir Francis Bacon was a creationist.

Finally, it does not matter who came up with the scientific method. It is now a procedure devoid of any religion. That procedure is grossly violated by creationists today. I already told you the difference:

The Scientific Method:

Start with the facts, and see what conclusions can be drawn from them.​

The Creationist Method.

Start with the conclusion, and see what facts are consistent with it. Ignore all facts that aren't.​

.

 

[zaangalewa]

All Christians "believe" in evolution

Most Christians believe in creation.

All Christians believe that god created the world(s) and the heaven(s) - all visible and invisible realities - all known and [still] unknown things.

You just do not get real science.

One of the most superidiotic abstrahotic nonsense discussion is the neverending English discussion "creation vs evolution".

How many times are you going to lie

I don't lie and you know this, anti-Christian, because it is impossible to lie with an opinion. So why do you say continously such stupid things? You are just simple not interested in opinions, which are not 1000% your own opinion - or the opinion of your Borg Queen.

and have lied as a creationist evolutionist? It doesn't even make sense.

It makes sense because evolution and creation are totally different things. First has to exist something before it is able to evolve.

You just do not understand real science.

No one understands anything who sinks not down to his knees and prays to you and your absurde ideas, god, isn't it? Ever heard from the absurde idea that god is not you and the Holy Spirit blows where ever the Holy Spirit likes to blow and not where others like to see him blow? Very short: natural science is natural science. Everyone from all religions is able to be a natural scientist without any problem - as long as one believes in one common truth in science. What this will be in the end no one knows now.

 

[Quasar44]

Wuwei
I think you need isotope dating for billions
. Carbon is for tens of thousands

 

[james bond]

Creationists misuse C14 dating. They don't understand the noise floor of the instruments.

Just as I thought. You don't know C14 dating, another form of radiometric dating. You didn't know it wasn't used to date rocks. Moreover, you didn't know who came up with radiometric dating No wonder you want me to look up things for you. All you do is lie, misrepresent, and complain about creationists lol. Hater.

Furthermore, I pointed out one has to know how much of your radiometric gas was initially present in the "rock" to be correct about billions of years. OTOH, creationists do not use C14 dating on rocks. Did you know why? Of course not. Psst, it's only for organic (living) materials. LOL. In your case, the billions of years old Earth was based on a meteor not even found on Earth. Of course, they didn't know how much K gas was present initially which gave erroneous results. These "scientists" used it anyway when it fit "old" Earth and universe to support evolution. What lies. Your weak wiki arguments can be dismissed as you cannot rebut my complaints and know little about what your opposition did.

I already explained it some time ago, but you didn't get it. Look up "noise floor" in Wikipedia. Because of that, the confidence interval at the limit of accuracy of a C14 spectrometer goes to infinity. The values that creationists use do not take the noise into consideration. Also try to find the published confidence interval that creationists get when they use C14 dating with diamonds.

Haha. You may as well bang your head into a wall.

 

[james bond]

I don't lie and you know this, anti-Christian, because it is impossible to lie with an opinion. So why do you say continously such stupid things? You are just simple not interested in opinions, which are not 1000% your own opinion - or the opinion of your Borg Queen.

Sure you do. You lied plenty, were the one who said stupid things in our tete-a-tete, and continue to do so. Continuously.

You're the simpleton. I brought up C14 dating, but didn't use it on rocks. Do you know why? Of course you don't. See simpleton.

 

[james bond]

Wuwei
I think you need isotope dating for billions
. Carbon is for tens of thousands

Wuwei doesn't know about C14 dating, how creationists used C14 dating, nor can explain why soft tissue and C14 remained in billions of years old dinosaur fossils. He didn't know it's not used to date rocks. His basic argument is from wikipedia and his atheist scientists cannot possibly know how much K was there initially.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't lie and you know this, anti-Christian, because it is impossible to lie with an opinion. So why do you say continously such stupid things? You are just simple not interested in opinions, which are not 1000% your own opinion - or the opinion of your Borg Queen.

Sure you do. You lied plenty ...

Really unbelieveable that so many people in the world seem not to know where impertinence ends and where crimes begin. To call someone an asshole is one thing - to call someone a liar a totally other thing. Specially a Christian would know that to say so in public is a break of the eigth commandment. Ergo: You are no Christian. So why do you say all this bullshit which you say in the name of the Christian religion, anti-Christian? Fortunatelly is the discussion "evolution vs creation" for Christains a totally unimportant pseudo-discussion, which has not really to do with the belief in god. Christians don't deny god by denying any truth - also not in science - and for Christians exists not any need to defame other people.

 

[Wuwei]

Wuwei
I think you need isotope dating for billions
. Carbon is for tens of thousands

That's right. The problem is that creationists have dated diamonds using C14. For very old rocks or diamonds the presence of C14 should be immeasurably small. But with any instrument there will always be noise at the limit of measurement called the noise floor. However creationists (including james bond) think that the noise actually indicates C14 which gives between 60 to 100 thousand years if it were real. Even so, james bond does not recognize that the noise measurements of C14 is much greater than the 6 thousand years creations believe the earth and universe. This contradiction is ignored by young earth creationists.

As for longer lived isotope dating see my next post to J Bond.

.

 

[Wuwei]

@Wuwei doesn't know about C14 dating, how creationists used C14 dating, nor can explain why soft tissue and C14 remained in billions of years old dinosaur fossils. He didn't know it's not used to date rocks. His basic argument is from wikipedia and his atheist scientists cannot possibly know how much K was there initially.

For long live dating using potassium (K-40) the original amount of potassium is the sum of the argon (Ar-40) and K-40 measured in moles.

For example if it is found that there is an equal amount of K-40 and Ar-40 in a sample the total potassium that started out is the sum of the two isotopes. Since the half life of K-40 is 1.28 billion years, the age must be the same, namely 1.28 billion years.

To verify the sample is not contaminated by environmental argon, there should not be any of the other naturally occurring isotopes of argon such as Ar-36 or Ar-38.

In using Uranium-238 to Lead-206 dating, contamination is eliminated by using U-238 encapsulated in zircon crystals. Contamination by natural occurring lead is verified by noting there should not be any other stable lead isotope occurring in the same sample.

Meteorites and very old earth rocks have been dated by many methods which agree with each other: rubidium-strontium; samarium-neodymium; lutetium-hafnium, uranium-lead and its variant Pb-Pb.

You have no case with thousands of assays that all agree with each other. Contamination is a random process when considering many wide spread samples sites.

I have directly dealt with isotopes and instruments for measuring radiation for over 25 years. You have not, and really show your naiveite.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

If I told you the place we could meet ??
It would mean zero even if I gave you exact directions
You also need the time

Time is an effect that space has on the atom. A gravity field squeezes in on an atom making its functions slower and one of those functions is manipulating the mechanisms of a clock.

 

[james bond]

Really unbelieveable that so many people in the world seem not to know where impertinence ends and where crimes begin. To call someone an asshole is one thing - to call someone a liar a totally other thing. Specially a Christian would know that to say so in public is a break of the eigth commandment. Ergo: You are no Christian. So why do you say all this bullshit which you say in the name of the Christian religion, anti-Christian? Fortunatelly is the discussion "evolution vs creation" for Christains a totally unimportant pseudo-discussion, which has not really to do with the belief in god. Christians don't deny god by denying any truth - also not in science - and for Christians exists not any need to defame other people.

I already pointed it out. You said, "All Christians "believe" in evolution - the only exception are some very few extreme US-American Christians." You also state "evolution vs creation" for Christians is totally unimportant pseudo-discussion. Those are lies. You also contradict yourself and aren't logical. How can you ever hope to communicate what you are trying to say when you do not explain yourself adequately and also lie?

You also don't answer my questions such as who created radiometric dating? How can they get the age of Earth by measuring meteors? Just admit you don't understand radiometric dating, radiocarbon dating, and most science very well. Don't lie again.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Time" is the effect of observing change. Observation is human. "Time", "Space" or anything else existing without an observer is meaningless.

 

[zaangalewa]

Really unbelieveable that so many people in the world seem not to know where impertinence ends and where crimes begin. To call someone an asshole is one thing - to call someone a liar a totally other thing. Specially a Christian would know that to say so in public is a break of the eigth commandment. Ergo: You are no Christian. So why do you say all this bullshit which you say in the name of the Christian religion, anti-Christian? Fortunatelly is the discussion "evolution vs creation" for Christains a totally unimportant pseudo-discussion, which has not really to do with the belief in god. Christians don't deny god by denying any truth - also not in science - and for Christians exists not any need to defame other people.

I already pointed it out. You said, "All Christians "believe" in evolution - the only exception are some very few extreme US-American Christians."

Exactly.

You also state "evolution vs creation" for Christians is totally unimportant pseudo-discussion.

Exactly again. And this discussion is also philosophically for scientsts on a very deep abstrahotic pseudo-level. An agnostics is for example not an atheist and agnosticism makes nothing plausible in context of the belief atheism.

Those are lies.

... You are really strange. You have absolutelly not any idea what you try to speak about, isn't it? No one needs a discussion about the theme "creation vs evolution" to find out what god expects him to do in the own daily life.

And in general as well the Christian religion nor the belief atheism are able to be the "state religion" of science. Scientific questions are open in all directions. What is not definetelly wrong has to be seen as true.

You also contradict yourself and aren't logical.

Example?

How can you ever hope to communicate what you are trying to say when you do not explain yourself adequately and also lie?

¿Blubb? ... Ah sorry - this is a typical sophisticated German counter-question. Very difficult to translate. "Bubble" could perhaps be a good translation.

You also don't answer my questions such as who created radiometric dating?

Uninteresting nonsense.

How can they get the age of Earth by measuring meteors? Just admit you don't understand radiometric dating, radiocarbon dating, and most science very well. Don't lie again.

Here follows in a video a simple description how we found out in the 19th and 20th century, how to measure with radioactive substances the age of stones - or also the age of bones. The video is in German. To remember: We live now in the 21st century and not in the 19th century.

 

[zaangalewa]

"Time" is the effect of observing change. Observation is human.

Try to catch a fly then you will see that a fly is a damned fast observer. I guess in a most simple way is an observation nothing else than a simple interaction. What not interacts is just simple not existing. You could stand in the middle of a sun - as long as this sun not interacts with you happens nothing.

"Time", "Space" or anything else existing without an observer is meaningless.

The moon moved a long time around the Earth before known human beings observed this.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Time" is the effect of observing change. Observation is human.

Try to catch a fly then you will see that a fly is a damned fast observer. I guess in a most simple way is an observation nothing else than a simple interaction. What not interacts is just simple not existing. You could stand in the middle of a sun - as long as this sun not interacts with you happens nothing.

"Time", "Space" or anything else existing without an observer is meaningless.

The moon moved a long time around the Earth before known human beings observed this.

Technically, that is an inference.