Jump to content


Photo

Anecdote On Age Of T-Rex, Analyzed Critically

critical analysis

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 07 August 2017 - 09:56 AM

An elderly tour guide at a museum of natural history routinely fields a question about the age of an impressive T-rex constructed from fossilized remains. On one particular tour:
.

... a teenager ... asks the guide, "How old is it?"

"Sixty-five million and thirty-eight years old," the guide responds proudly.

"How could you possibly know that?" the teenager shoots back.

"Simple! [When] I started working at the museum, I asked ... the very same question. ... That was thirty-eight years ago."
...
When the guide tacks on that thirty-eight years, he's committed a numerical sin that turns his answer into a falsehood.

.
(Proofiness, by Charles Seife, pages 18-19.)

The author continues with a description of the possible methods used by Paleontologists to attain the figure 65,000,000 years. This thread's author, I, will not discuss the relative merits and problems of ANY methods of dating such fossils.

The purpose of this thread is to ask those interested to analyze critically the judgement made by the author which is the final sentence in the quotation and without reference to any putative errors--real or imagined--in methods of dating.

For the Young Earth Creationists, substitute the date of your choice for 65,000,000 and use that date and the second date of +38 years: for example, 5500 and 5538, respectively.

#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 August 2017 - 02:37 AM

My answer;

 

"I've had this job for 38 years."

 

"Mike, how long has he had this job?"

 

"Well, I spoke to him for 35 seconds, so he has had it for 38 years and 35 seconds."

 

Schera, now please measure the length of your garden. "2 miles long".

 

But I have just added a border which is 3cm, so now it is exactly 2 miles and 6 cm.

 

ANALOGY;

 

"Mike, I measure spuds by weight my friend, now you are down for a dozen a week but there are a few extra here. Now let me just see, yes, this bag feels like a dozen to me, and here look, 5 more extra spuds to go with it meaning you now have a total of 17 spuds."

 

I then count a total of 13 spuds.



#3 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 09 August 2017 - 05:02 AM

...
"I've had this job for 38 years."

"Mike, how long has he had this job?"

"Well, I spoke to him for 35 seconds, so he has had it for 38 years and 35 seconds."

Schera, now please measure the length of ...

.
You like to use--loosely, all too loosely--what we call "probability." I won't use that. Instead, I'll use "likely" and ask, is it likely that you spoke to the man for exactly 35 seconds if we measured the length of your discussion with an atomic stop-watch that has 9,192,631,770 "oscillation periods" per second? If we did use such a device to measure your conversation's length and it gave the value "35.0000000000 seconds", then we might call that proof of God. We can be confident that you reported an error in your length of conversation, and, therefore, "... he has [NOT] had it for 38 years and 35 seconds."

The same analysis can be made with respect to the number "38 years." The exact age of anything can't be established in our perpetual tense, as well as exact durations, as in how long I've been employed. We can discard entirely your sentence: "Well, I spoke to him for 35 seconds, so he has had it for 38 years and 35 seconds."

In the OP, I ask that a judgment be made on the author's final sentence, which is: "When the guide tacks on that thirty-eight years, he's committed a numerical sin that turns his answer into a falsehood." Remember that the point of reference is the age of the fossilized skeleton: it does have an actual age. which we might consider to be MORE ACCURATE with the 38 tacked on than without! We would then require that the '38 years' be expessed as years, months, days, hours, seconds, that being EVEN MORE ACCURATE when tacked-on to 65,000,000--but the author insists that the man "committed a numerical sin" with the MORE accurate 65,000,038.

Here are the facts:

1. The T-rex fossilized remains are real;
2. The earth-matter deposited on top of the remains were accumulated after the animal's death;
3. There is a duration of time that the fossilized skeleton has existed and it is increasing continuously in this present, perpetual tense.

Given these facts, how should the question, "How old is it?" be answered?

#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 August 2017 - 06:46 AM

No you miss the point entirely with pedantics. My example of 38 years and 35 seconds is to highlight the disparity between two very different methods of measurement. When he said, "38 years" in all likelihood he did not specifically mean that exactly 38 years had passed to the day and hour, he likely just meant he had been in the job for about 38 years, meaning that could mean 38 years and 12 days or 38 years and 9 months. So you could add 35 seconds to both figures so how can your conclusion be 38 years and 35 seconds? That is too specific, and that was my point, because the removal of the original meaning and context of what was originally meant, is an incorrect assumption.

 

So then the point of my example is to show that to add 35 seconds wouldn't have any relevance to that scale of measurement.

 

 

 

Schera: In the OP, I ask that a judgment be made on the author's final sentence, which is: "When the guide tacks on that thirty-eight years, he's committed a numerical sin that turns his answer into a falsehood."

 

My answer is after analysing what he said, I don't find an error in what he said necessarily. Part of critical analysis is to realise that in some cases there is nothing be critical of. Also I must say, there isn't all that much to analyse in one sentence, Schera.

 

In this case he is saying that taking a round number of 65 million years, of which is predicated on a dating method which allows room for error of thousands of years, and then adding a specific amount of  38 years, is wrong, because like the spud-example I gave, you are taking one type of broad measure invented for measuring great eons, then using a much more acute measure where you can count individual years, and you are adding the two and it doesn't work.

 

In the analogy I shown this, when the man guessed by weight, for one method of measuring dozens of spuds, but for individual spuds he used a different measure of counting individual, which is analogous to conflating a dating method and counting. He then takes both and comes to a wrong conclusion

 

"Simples".

 

 

 

Schera: Here are the facts:

 

Now you're just patronising me. Why wouldn't I know what the facts are? (You need to break this habit of condescension, you have a superiority-complex and I don't know if you realise it but most of your posts seem to come across as sanctimonious, as though we are all your pupils, and you are a god).

 

I'm well aware of what facts are. And your number 2 isn't a fact, if the earth matter on top of the fossil was contemporaneous and the whole section of rock was dumped with the fossil in it at the same time. Number 1 and 3 are tautologies, because anything we find is always "real" and if you find fossils in rock they are always going to be of a certain age, even if that age is 2.4 seconds, two tenths of a second or two million years.

 

 

 

 

Schera:  I'll use "likely" and ask, is it likely that you spoke to the man for exactly 35 seconds if we measured the length of your discussion with an atomic stop-watch that has 9,192,631,770 "oscillation periods" per second?

 

This is known as a moot point. The point of measuring in seconds isn't to provide an atomic measurement of time, the relevance of counting in seconds depends on how relevant the situation is. For example if you ask how old I am I would use years, if you ask how old a fairly young baby is, we use months, if you ask how long I have been in the shower I will use minutes if you ask how long I have been picking my nose I might use seconds.

 

So when we say, "a dino is 65 myo" it isn't relevant that it isn't exact in seconds, minutes, hours or even years. To add 38 years as though we meant a specific year, is to misunderstand the point of the dating method which is not saying that 65 million years exactly, with all six zeros. So if they give a date of 65 million years, that can be consistent as an estimate, with 65,000,000 or 65,004,976. "38 years" could be added to both.

 

Also you have to consider that with a large date specifics are irrelevant for the method, but with a very small amount of time it becomes much, much more relevant. For example in formula one racing because the drivers are all so equal in ability, pole position may count on tenths or even hundredths of a second. 

 

 

 

Schera: You like to use--loosely, all too loosely--what we call "probability."

 

Notice the two highlighted terms - that indicates to me you're playing a superiority-game here with this empty personal attack. 

 

"We the superior human beings have disdain for your lack of interest in irrelevant academic pedantics, we hate the way you concisely get to the point, because then we can't tie you up with semantics, so we shall call the semantics holy and pretend you don't qualify to understand them." ;)



#5 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 09 August 2017 - 08:57 AM

No you miss the point entirely with pedantics. My example of 38 years and 35 seconds is to highlight the disparity between two very different methods of measurement. When he said, "38 years" in all likelihood he did not specifically mean that exactly 38 years had passed to the day and hour, he likely just meant he had been in the job for about 38 years, meaning that could mean 38 years and 12 days or 38 years and 9 months. So you could add 35 seconds to both figures so how can your conclusion be 38 years and 35 seconds? That is too specific, and that was my point, because the removal of the original meaning and context of what was originally meant, is an incorrect assumption.

So then the point of my example is to show that to add 35 seconds wouldn't have any relevance to that scale of measurement.
 

Schera: In the OP, I ask that a judgment be made on the author's final sentence, which is: "When the guide tacks on that thirty-eight years, he's committed a numerical sin that turns his answer into a falsehood."


My answer is after analysing what he said, I don't find an error in what he said necessarily. Part of critical analysis is to realise that in some cases there is nothing be critical of. Also I must say, there isn't all that much to analyse in one sentence, Schera.

In this case he is saying that taking a round number of 65 million years, of which is predicated on a dating method which allows room for error of thousands of years, and then adding a specific amount of 38 years, is wrong, because like the spud-example I gave, you are taking one type of broad measure invented for measuring great eons, then using a much more acute measure where you can count individual years, and you are adding the two and it doesn't work.

In the analogy I shown this, when the man guessed by weight, for one method of measuring dozens of spuds, but for individual spuds he used a different measure of counting individual, which is analogous to conflating a dating method and counting. He then takes both and comes to a wrong conclusion.

"Simples".

Schera: Here are the facts:


Now you're just patronising me. Why wouldn't I know what the facts are? (You need to break this habit of condescension, you have a superiority-complex and I don't know if you realise it but most of your posts seem to come across as sanctimonious, as though we are all your pupils, and you are a god).

I'm well aware of what facts are. And your number 2 isn't a fact, if the earth matter on top of the fossil was contemporaneous and the whole section of rock was dumped with the fossil in it at the same time. Number 1 and 3 are tautologies, because anything we find is always "real" and if you find fossils in rock they are always going to be of a certain age, even if that age is 2.4 seconds, two tenths of a second or two million years.


Schera: I'll use "likely" and ask, is it likely that you spoke to the man for exactly 35 seconds if we measured the length of your discussion with an atomic stop-watch that has 9,192,631,770 "oscillation periods" per second?


This is known as a moot point. The point of measuring in seconds isn't to provide an atomic measurement of time, the relevance of counting in seconds depends on how relevant the situation is. For example if you ask how old I am I would use years, if you ask how old a fairly young baby is, we use months, if you ask how long I have been in the shower I will use minutes if you ask how long I have been picking my nose I might use seconds.

So when we say, "a dino is 65 myo" it isn't relevant that it isn't exact in seconds, minutes, hours or even years. To add 38 years as though we meant a specific year, is to misunderstand the point of the dating method which is not saying that 65 million years exactly, with all six zeros. So if they give a date of 65 million years, that can be consistent as an estimate, with 65,000,000 or 65,004,976. "38 years" could be added to both.

Also you have to consider that with a large date specifics are irrelevant for the method, but with a very small amount of time it becomes much, much more relevant. For example in formula one racing because the drivers are all so equal in ability, pole position may count on tenths or even hundredths of a second.

Schera: You like to use--loosely, all too loosely--what we call "probability."


Notice the two highlighted terms - that indicates to me you're playing a superiority-game here with this empty personal attack.

"We the superior human beings have disdain for your lack of interest in irrelevant academic pedantics, we hate the way you concisely get to the point, because then we can't tie you up with semantics, so we shall call the semantics holy and pretend you don't qualify to understand them." ;)

.
You can't be serious, but I know you are serious. Perhaps, someone else here can help you.

Thanks for the attempt.

#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 August 2017 - 10:08 AM

I don't see what's so hard to understand. Let's put it this way then, if someone uses the K-Ar dating method on a rock and their estimate is 65 million years plus or minus say 300,000 years, then how if you added a count of 38 years would you get exactly 65,000,038 years?

 

So to say, "attempt" is an epithet, it seems to me you're saying, "well, I don't agree mike so you attempted it but failed", but where is my error? Since a dating method would be perfectly consistent with an ACTUAL age of 65,008,432 years, then if that is the ACTUAL age, which of course, nobody can ever know because no device can count the years before our existence that precisely, then if I add 38 years to that figure I don't get 65,000,038 years. That is why the person you quoted is saying it is a "numerical sin".

 

He's right, if that's what he is saying, because the figure of 65,000,038 years is a non-sequitur, which means that conclusion does not follow. It would be the same as measuring bags of potatoes by the dozen by feel, then saying if you count 2 extra potatoes individually, that one bag and 2 potatoes would = 14 potatoes. But if he weighs them by feel, you could open the bag and there is actually only 9 potatoes.

 

If the bag is history, then nobody gets to open that bag Schera, meaning the 65,000,038 figure, is a phantom. Dating methods don't claim to be that precise so they shouldn't be taken that literally. Now the real age of that T-rex could be 13,000 years if we go by the soft tissue finds instead of the dating methods. :D

 

I'm not sure why you would make a topic about this. Very particular things taken in isolation, seem to irritate you in some way, and you hold on to them in your memory for use at a later date, like the issue surrounding "what facts are", you tend to fixate on certain things, and treat them with special interest. That's just an observation, I am not saying that is right or wrong it just seems a little strange how things which could sometimes be regarded as trivial, tend to be big things to you.

 

Seems the silent-treatment is my mikey reward for daring to disagree. Next the ignore list no doubt. ;)



#7 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 09 August 2017 - 10:57 AM

I don't see what's so hard to understand. Let's put it this way then, if someone uses the K-Ar dating method on a rock and their estimate is 65 million years plus or minus say 300,000 years, then how if you added a count of 38 years would you get exactly 65,000,038 years?

So to say, "attempt" is an epithet, it seems to me you're saying, "well, I don't agree mike so you attempted it but failed", but where is my error? Since a dating method would be perfectly consistent with an ACTUAL age of 65,008,432 years, then if that is the ACTUAL age, which of course, nobody can ever know because no device can count the years before our existence that precisely, then if I add 38 years to that figure I don't get 65,000,038 years. That is why the person you quoted is saying it is a "numerical sin".

He's right, if that's what he is saying, because the figure of 65,000,038 years is a non-sequitur, which means that conclusion does not follow. It would be the same as measuring bags of potatoes by the dozen by feel, then saying if you count 2 extra potatoes individually, that one bag and 2 potatoes would = 14 potatoes. But if he weighs them by feel, you could open the bag and there is actually only 9 potatoes.

If the bag is history, then nobody gets to open that bag Schera, meaning the 65,000,038 figure, is a phantom. Dating methods don't claim to be that precise so they shouldn't be taken that literally. Now the real age of that T-rex could be 13,000 years if we go by the soft tissue finds instead of the dating methods. :D

I'm not sure why you would make a topic about this. Very particular things taken in isolation, seem to irritate you in some way, and you hold on to them in your memory for use at a later date, like the issue surrounding "what facts are", you tend to fixate on certain things, and treat them with special interest. That's just an observation, I am not saying that is right or wrong it just seems a little strange how things which could sometimes be regarded as trivial, tend to be big things to you.

Seems the silent-treatment is my mikey reward for daring to disagree. Next the ignore list no doubt. ;)

.
You are mistaken to conclude that I didn't understand your reply: it was my understanding that led me to make my short reply. In part of the above quote you lapse into a critique of dating methods, despite me TWICE mentioning that it is to be ignored for the purposes of the OP. Someone may LATER bring that in when it becomes relevant, but the OP is designed to test one's critical analysis skills without special and detailed knowledge of the subject.

It's breathtaking in a bad way to read your attempt to deny that the T-rex skeleton's age is not affected by the passage of 38 years since the guide first was told it's age--no matter what the accuracy of the dating method. Unbelievable.

#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 August 2017 - 01:29 PM

 

Schera Do: It's breathtaking in a bad way to read your attempt to deny that the T-rex skeleton's age is not affected by the passage of 38 years since the guide first was told it's age--no matter what the accuracy of the dating method. Unbelievable. 

 
 

 

This is a strawman fallacy, and a pretty absurd one because that wasn't even close to what I claimed. I never said the passage of 38 years wouldn't increase the age of the skeleton, which is a totally separate matter to what I was discussing. So that was never my argument. I said the specific age of 65,000,038 is a non-sequitur, because it doesn't follow. That has nothing to do with the fact that 38 years passed for the man in that job. For example do you believe that I think the 38 years didn't actually pass, and that the twilight zone deleted those years?

 

Why even mention something so elementary? It doesn't matter how old the skeleton is, I would take it for granted that every reader would know that I would concede the 38 years had passed. Lol. But we both know you were being mendacious, for you know I would never argue such an absurdity.

 

My argument was actually that you cannot conclude a figure of 65,000,038 because that assumes the dating method can give you a literal 65,000,000 years. 

 

It is only the final 38 years which were personally measured/counted by the person, you can't mix such an accurate count with a dating method which doesn't count anywhere close to that accurate. A dating method can have an error-factor of thousands of years, so how can it give you a figure bang on 65 million years?

 

Conclusion; The problem isn't the 38 years, the problem is the dating method doesn't offer an equivalently accurate count.



#9 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 09 August 2017 - 06:26 PM

Schera Do: It's breathtaking in a bad way to read your attempt to deny that the T-rex skeleton's age is not affected by the passage of 38 years since the guide first was told it's age--no matter what the accuracy of the dating method. Unbelievable.


This is a strawman fallacy, and a pretty absurd one because that wasn't even close to what I claimed. I never said the passage of 38 years wouldn't increase the age of the skeleton, which is a totally separate matter to what I was discussing. So that was never my argument. I said the specific age of 65,000,038 is a non-sequitur, because it doesn't follow. That has nothing to do with the fact that 38 years passed for the man in that job. For example do you believe that I think the 38 years didn't actually pass, and that the twilight zone deleted those years?

Why even mention something so elementary? It doesn't matter how old the skeleton is, I would take it for granted that every reader would know that I would concede the 38 years had passed. Lol. But we both know you were being mendacious, for you know I would never argue such an absurdity.

My argument was actually that you cannot conclude a figure of 65,000,038 because that assumes the dating method can give you a literal 65,000,000 years.

It is only the final 38 years which were personally measured/counted by the person, you can't mix such an accurate count with a dating method which doesn't count anywhere close to that accurate. A dating method can have an error-factor of thousands of years, so how can it give you a figure bang on 65 million years?

Conclusion; The problem isn't the 38 years, the problem is the dating method doesn't offer an equivalently accurate count.

.
The above confirms the correctness of my initial reaction when I first saw your username in 2014.

#10 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 10 August 2017 - 03:01 PM

The 38 tacked-on years is irrelevant to the alleged 65m years of the fossil.

 

Elderly Tour Guide: "It's 65 million years, plus 38 because that's how long I've been working here."

 

Young Tour Guide: "No, it's 65 million years, plus the 10 months I've been working here."

 

New Hire Tour Guide: "You are both wrong. It is exactly 65 million years old because that's what I was told today in new-hire orientation.

 

So, who's right? And who cares? Anybody want to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?



#11 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 10 August 2017 - 05:40 PM

The purpose of this thread is to ask those interested to analyze critically the judgement made by the author which is the final sentence in the quotation and without reference to any putative errors--real or imagined--in methods of dating.

you cannot discuss radioactive dating methods WITHOUT mentioning the errors and assumption involved.
to do so would imply these dates are exact, and they aren't.

in fact, the museum curator was in error when he stated the 65,000,000 figure without mentioning a "plus or minus time span".
  • mike the wiz likes this

#12 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 10 August 2017 - 10:49 PM

I know I'm on "ignore", but I'll just state the obvious that the 65,000,038 years is a joke.

 

As both Mike and What If have pointed out, the clear "numerical sin" of this joke is that the 38 years is going to be dwarfed by the uncertainty given by the measurement itself; the 65,000,000 figure was never meant to be exact but an approximation. The "sin" is of a similar sin that Spock of Star Trek would make when he would say something like 'we have precisely 25.1496 seconds to impact'. The underlying sin being that the number of significant digits is nonsensical.


  • Fjuri and mike the wiz like this

#13 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 11 August 2017 - 03:07 AM

The 38 tacked-on years is irrelevant to the alleged 65m years of the fossil.
...

.

...
In the OP, I ask that a judgment be made on the author's final sentence, which is: "When the guide tacks on that thirty-eight years, he's committed a numerical sin that turns his answer into a falsehood."
...
Here are the facts:

1. The T-rex fossilized remains are real;
2. The earth-matter deposited on top of the remains were accumulated after the animal's death;
3. There is a duration of time that the fossilized skeleton has existed and it is increasing continuously in this present, perpetual tense.

Given these facts, how should the question, "How old is it?" be answered?

.

...
Elderly Tour Guide: "It's 65 million years, plus 38 because that's how long I've been working here."

Young Tour Guide: "No, it's 65 million years, plus the 10 months I've been working here."

New Hire Tour Guide: "You are both wrong. It is exactly 65 million years old because that's what I was told today in new-hire orientation.
...

.
When I conceived the OP, I had considered but decided not, to ask this question: If the tour guide answers 65,000,038, then is it more accurate than had he answered 65,000,000? As the entire intent of the OP is to test one's critical analysis skills--one in particular, he being the one who submitted post #2--I knew that I should not pose that question.

I'm going to type these next sentences very slowly in the hopeless hope that it will aid in resultant comprehension:

We all know that the figure 65,000,000 is "alleged".

Given fact #1 above--the T-rex fossilized remains are real--we all know that their is an actual age of the fossilized skeleton in the museum.

Now, you all can, if you want, discuss

...how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

.
...as that is exactly what is being discussed when disputing the age of the T-rex when one believes in the young earth creation. Any and all scenarios are possible given the YEC presumption.

What is prima faci evidence is:

1. The T-rex remains are real;
2. That the animal died;
3. The length of time that the animal has been dead is accrued with each passing moment.

One doesn't even need to know how to spell paleontology to know this and does not have to know methods of dating fossils. This is the essence of critical analysis without needing to know the scientific methods and technology.

I am astounded that some get tangled in self-evident fact #3.

#14 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:38 AM

The purpose of this thread is to ask those interested to analyze critically the judgement made by the author which is the final sentence in the quotation and without reference to any putative errors--real or imagined--in methods of dating.

you cannot discuss radioactive dating methods WITHOUT mentioning the errors and assumption involved.
...

.
You can not be serious.
 

The 38 tacked-on years ...

Elderly Tour Guide: ...
Young Tour Guide: ...
New Hire Tour Guide: ...

So, who's right? And who cares? ....

.
I forgot to mention that I have never lost any sleep over the difference between the paleontologist's version and the YEC's version--whatever that may be.

By definition, the YEC cares that the vast majority of Western Civilization accepts the estimate of the T-rex fossil. The actual age of the thing is not my problem.

#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:22 AM

Well, we all see things differently Schera, no harm done.

 

Perhaps we all critically evaluate things according to our own unique brand of thinking. You may spot things I don't spot, I may spot things you don't spot. 

 

C'est la vie. 



#16 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:46 AM

Well, we all see things differently Schera, no harm done.

Perhaps we all critically evaluate things according to our own unique brand of thinking. You may spot things I don't spot, I may spot things you don't spot.

C'est la vie.

.
No, Mike. The proper application of critical analysis "separates the men from the boys" within the intellectual realm and, ideally, provides the means of arbitration in an intellectual dispute. Your version peddles a relativistic brand of facts; a version that would render Mathematics impossible and, let me remind you, the entirety of our technological civilization would be impossible. Therefore, monumentally great "harm done."

In our context, the intellectual realm, "C'est la vie" means "facts for thee, but not me."--anarchy, mayhem and the Dark Ages.

You may dispute any of my assertions in the posts of mine above in this thread, with specificity and clarity and I will reply.

#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 August 2017 - 04:16 AM

I'm sorry but that seems like a slippery slope kind of response, I am not claiming any of those things Schera, my comment was only a casual observation of people in general and was a friendly attempt to "let it go", since it seems the thread is heading towards arguing with each other pettily.... If you want to test my critical thinking it is much more realistic to have me take a test which covers the whole area of critical thinking, of which there are a lot of issues involved. Psychological fallacies, fallacies of ambiguity, formal fallacies, ascertaining what claims are, and what type, rhetorical devices, persuastion via use of rhetoric, etc..evaluating soundness of arguments...

 

This following quiz is a fairly good test as there's quite a few questions; and the following test is also good because it deals with claims and arguments;

 

http://highered.mhed...es_quiz_i.html(psychological fallacies quiz)

 

(claims and arguments quiz)
 
Attached File  quizrez.jpg   51.92KB   0 downloads
 
I'm afraid my scores don't indicate I have a poor grasp of critical analysis. Critical thinking, as you can see from the website dedicated to it, does cover an awful lot of ground and my general knowledge of the subject is basically good, though like most people I could do with learning more.
 
One thing critical thinking notation tells us is how rhetorical devices can be used by people, like when you said "astounded", how can you be astounded by something I didn't do? It's a loaded statement because I never actually claimed the strawman you said I claimed, it would be like me saying this; "I am astounded that some people think superman is a goose." 
 
"someone" meaning Schera. The problem with this argument is that it hasn't been proven you believe superman was a goose. If you re-read this thread, my critical analysis of your posts is that they contain a lot of bare assertions. According to critical thinking notation, a claim must be backed by reasoning and evidence. You also use question-begging-epithets such as "amazed" or, "astounded", but there seems to be very little actual argumentation in your posts, a lot of the time it just seems to be that you are making statements but not specifically addressing what people have said, and no attempt to show how what they said is specifically wrong.
 
CONCLUSION; My opinion is that generally you are importing things into the discussion that aren't really there. Things I haven't implied or argued. I don't imply the world shouldn't think critically but would advise the opposite, and I didn't argue that things don't age as more time goes by. (Lol)
 

 

 

Schera: Your version peddles a relativistic brand of facts; a version that would render Mathematics impossible and, let me remind you, the entirety of our technological civilization would be impossible. Therefore, monumentally great "harm done."

 

By "no harm done" I meant we can still be civil despite our arguments and disagreements, because I know how you might hold a grudge. One of the names for "Michael" which is says on my keyring is "a friendly fellow...makes waves of peace." 

 

:D

 



#18 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 12 August 2017 - 08:59 AM

I'm sorry but that seems like a slippery slope kind of response, ...

.
How so?

#19 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 12 August 2017 - 11:49 AM

I'm sorry but that seems like a slippery slope kind of response, I am not claiming any of those things Schera, my comment was only a casual observation of people in general and was a friendly attempt to "let it go", since it seems the thread is heading towards arguing with each other pettily.... If you want to test my critical thinking it is much more realistic to have me take a test which covers the whole area of critical thinking, of which there are a lot of issues involved. Psychological fallacies, fallacies of ambiguity, formal fallacies, ascertaining what claims are, and what type, rhetorical devices, persuastion via use of rhetoric, etc..evaluating soundness of arguments...

This following quiz is ...

.
Start your own thread.
.

I'm sorry but that seems like a slippery slope kind of response, ...

.
How so?

.
Your response will determine the nature of any further interaction we have on this forum.

I've got your number: it has a repeating decimal, a predictable, pattern; and I have no interest in extending the precision as it does not improve it's accuracy; it is, instead, tedious repetition.

You are free to dispute that the time the T-rex has been dead is not increasing each passing, month, day, year, moment--but you do so at your peril. In other words you're "clutching at straws, but still drowning."

Further, each attempt you make is further evidence that I was correct in my response to your name when you first appeared a short time after I first started posting here: I thought something was wrong and I've been shown to be right--repeatedly.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: critical analysis

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users