It was done by the science class at school, where numerous items the students had were sent away to be tested, and the results given to the class. The coin was an Australian penny which I found under the neighbor's demolished house, if you are saying that embedded dirt have given the false reading, I would agree. But dating methods are wrong because the earth is only about 6000 years old. But in your reckoning the whole world cannot be wrong and deceived can it? That is just not possible is it? That question will make you really uncomfortable...
So how much more hogwash are you going to make up and try to pawn off on us?
In case you miss my point, I am calling your bluff on this claim -- I say it is a fabrication.
We know that your claim about dating a coin is bogus, we know this because there is absolutely no possible way that putting a coin through a proper 14C measurement process would produce a manufacturing date for the coin.
This is because the process is used to date organic matter, specifically organisms that consumed atmospheric carbon, including 14C, while living: when they die they stop consuming atmospheric carbon and the clock of 14C decay starts.
Coins do not consume atmospheric carbon. They may contain trace amounts of carbon from the smelting process, possibly from coal\charcoal\wood, in which case what you are dating is the coal\charcoal\wood, not the coin. Claiming that you dated a coin by 14C is a bogus claim. So either you are lying or you misunderstood what was going on in your school.
It just proves we should not teach evolution in schools, because of ALL the things that went wrong and were dubious in that simple exercise, the lack of professionalism, the biased teachers, the religious creationists sabotaging the experiment, the lies, the wrong data, the outdated methods, the problems and the reams of examinations that must follow, the requested proofs and evidences now to be met. The panic of professors of science. The school is sinking with all students on board!
quote:"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.
This could likely be said about any science. He concludes:
quote:I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under 'insane' but which can be more sympathetically characterised by a word like tormented, bullied or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid and not wicked, can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding (or misunderstanding) of what their holy book tells them on the other. I think this is one of the truly bad things religion can do to a human mind. There is wickedness here, but it is the wickedness of the institution and what it does to a believing victim, not wickedness on the part of the victim himself. The clearest example I know is poignant, even sad, and I shall do it justice in a later article .
I add deluded ... as in misinformed, mislead, indoctrinated ...
Bring the evolution guard in, have these arrested, tested and documented. Oh the essays and reports that have to be written, YOUR PAPERS PLEASE!!
No, it's just that you have made a preposterous claim, and you are asked to substantiate it with objective empirical evidence.
Sounds like communism...wait a minute evolution is their doctrine. Well what do you know, an atheist communist education...
And again you are misinformed. Look up Lysenkoism.
By the way it was a state school with an atheist teacher, who by the way became a Christian soon after. Such a loss to the cause of the red sun.
And when people lie their stories become increasingly bizarre with new lies added to buttress the old.
I was eleven years old in year 7...not really interested in reams of paperwork, ... The items tested for age were numbered and could have been mixed up. ...
Ah, so you can't verify that it was the penny that was dated to 2500 years ago as claimed in Message 557. Not surprised.
So your whole reason for distrusting radiocarbon dating (according to your claims) rests on a probable mix-up and misunderstanding of which results went with what objects.
Now an open minded skeptic looking for independence in education would ask about other sources of information on testing objects for age where there was better control of the experiments\tests so that honest results could be compared and valid conclusions could be reached.
For instance, a scientifically thinking person would ask: 1. can the 14C/12C levels of the coin be replicated? 2. do the results mean the coin is 2500 year old?
The process of evolution - changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within reproducing populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities -- is indeed an observed objective empirical fact.
The theory of evolution is that this can explain the diversity of life we observe.
The science of evolution is the study of the known facts and testing of predictions of the theory to see if new facts can be observed.
... it is also clearly a scientific fact that evolution can not happen without DNA to mutate and or combine DNA of both parent organisms, in order for evolution to happen. ...
If we define life as something capable of change via the process of evolution, then we see that viruses can be considered life, without DNA, as that is needed is reproduction, mutation and selection.
Now that said evolution is a wonderful thing as it allows the human race to, for instance produce better food crops, corn being one. If you could invent an organism or life process, that would adapt itself to changing conditions, and thereby improve itself over time, would you not do this?
If we cannot guarantee that first it will cause no harm?
... why must evolution and ID be totally separate? ...
You would, but at which point is up to date true, when by its own claims is saying that it has to be flexible to change with new evidence?
Is there anything that you can prove is "true"? or is our knowledge an approximation of reality that improves with new scientific theories and findings?
If the accuracy of our knowledge is improved by new findings (eg -- the transition from Newton Gravity to Relativity) would you not teach Newtonian gravity for its simplicity of concept, and good enough accuracy to land a rover on Mars?
Learning is an ongoing process, not a matter of learning one set of facts for life. That is what makes it exciting.
You could teach whatever you want but you would not be allowed to test anyone on it, or fail them because it may all be proven false in the future.
Why not? It is the best information available, and it is taught as the best information available.
The idea of progressive knowledge is like a boat without a rudder.
The idea of fixed absolute knowledge is like a boat set in concrete. No place to go, and not much happening on board. Dullsville city.
At least with creationism you already have an established base, which does not change, it is only discovered in more detail.
Isn't it wonderful what you can accomplish when you ignore reality and choose fantasy over facts ... why you can even journey to the moon ...
either a hoax or a bad understanding of the lesson.
One might also ask where the carbon14 and carbon12 came from since the Australian penny is 97%copper, 2.5%zinc and 0.5% tin.
Could be impurities, but my money is on none of the objects actually being tested, that the teacher (lesson plan) made up numbers and asked the students to explain what they meant and if the results were realistic.
Message 643: What you are saying is that because I disagree on certain points which you deem to be right, because it has been peer reviewed and accepted on a grand scale, that I must be wrong.
But your opinion does not count, and neither are you in a peer reviewing board that represents global science. Unless you have been chosen to represent or speak for the board?
Cognitive dissonance, attacking the credibility of the messenger instead of refuting the argument. Classic.
When you voice a personal opinion based on belief without evidence as a counter to conclusions reached from objective empirical evidence that has been validated and confirmed by others, you need to provide some valid rational for people to think your argument is credible rather than self-serving fantasy.
Your system demands accountability to which you must hold to, ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
Your system demands accountability to which everyone making a claim must hold to, ...
The "system" of science demands accountability from everyone not just you. When you "play" on the science forums you accept the rules of science for making your arguments.
If you cannot attack observations and conclusions from science with scientific evidence and approach then you are in an axe fight armed with a rubber chicken, a gunfight armed with a plastic pop-gun, a fist fight with your hands tied (by you) behind your back.
... otherwise you are being hypocrites for asking me to back up anything, which I don't have to in my world, ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... thus you are being correct for asking me to back up anything, but which I don't have to in my fantasy world, ...
... because a person's intelligence actually counts, ...
... when it is properly applied ...
There is also the special pleading fallacy where you claim you have some kind of special privileges because of your "intellect" that exempt you from providing actual evidence to substantiate you claims.
... whereas in yours, you are answerable to an authority on knowledge. ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... whereas in yours, you are constrained by evidence and scientific theory. ...
... Does that sound like "all men are created equal" or communism?
(a) which are not exclusive and (b) are irrelevant, because what it sounds like is science.
Message 670: When I mentioned the rules in my world, ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
When I mentioned the rules in my fantasy world, ...
... I was not talking about this forum, ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... I was not talking about this forum, or reality, ...
... And I play within those rules as far as I am able, knowing that I don't have any evidence for the majority ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... And I pretend to play within those rules as far as I am able, knowing that I don't have any evidence for any of my claims ...
... which, if you really want to know, are not into what I post, ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... which, if you really want to know, are not into the fantasies I post, ...
... and possibly cannot be because of their habits of thinking.
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... and possibly cannot be because of their knowledge of reality.
It is a lot easier for many to not engage the intellect and just debunk things.
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
It is a lot easier for many to engage their intellect and skepticism to debunk or mock fantasy.
They like to remain where they are, no changes.
Curiously you complain when science updates information based on new findings and then you complain about science being static. Do you know what hypocrisy is?
It is possible to have a perverse observational skill due to a wrong idea in the first place. Science does not disprove Creationism at all, the false conclusions of brain washed men do. It depends on how one interprets the evidence.
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
It is possible to have a perverse (handicapped) observational skill due to a wrong idea based on a priori beliefs. Creationism does not disprove Science at all, the false conclusions of brain washed, indoctrinated people are still false. It depends on how one interprets ALL the evidence.
Curiously the rest of the world do not care one speck of ant frass about what you find "acceptable" or not.
Please provide sufficient material in the quotes so that the context is apparent to other readers (if not to you); what I said was:
When you voice a personal opinion based on belief without evidence as a counter to conclusions reached from objective empirical evidence that has been validated and confirmed by others, you need to provide some valid rational for people to think your argument is credible rather than self-serving fantasy.
For instance, when I look at the tree ring record from Bristlecone Pines in California and Oaks in Ireland and Germany, I can count more rings than your 6000 year old earth belief can explain ... these tree rings also cross-reference with each other and historical data as well as solar data in the form of 14C/12C levels in each of the rings recording solar cycles ... you need to provide me with some reason, some causal relationship, some basis, for your belief in a 6000 year old earth in order for me to consider it as anything more than delusional fantasy on your part.
This data alone shows the earth is older than your 6000 year belief. How do you explain it?
If you can't explain it then your argument has no relevance to reality.
And if that valid rational is valid, but not to the readers, then according to your system it is not valid, and remains invalid until the rationality of the readers reaches a point where it can rationalize something which they could not before.
I'm sure you thought that word salad was rational and even amusing when you wrote it.
... And if that valid rational is valid, but not to the readers, ...
In logic a conclusion is valid if it necessarily follows from the premises, and that if neither premise is false that the conclusion is true. This remains true no matter who reads it, it is the structure of the argument, not the content.
This has not been apparent in any of your arguments\rants\whinings, btw.
... then according to your system it is not valid, and remains invalid until ...
If the structure of the argument is valid then its validity is not subject to change no matter who reads it.
In science we take this a step further and require that the premises be based on objective empirical evidence. This means that the observation in the premises can be repeated by others and that they then come to the same conclusion based on the evidence and the validity of the argument.
... until the rationality of the readers reaches a point where it can rationalize something which they could not before
Beware of the logical fallacy of equivocation, using the same word with different meanings in different parts of your argument ... the mental stability of the reader has nothing to do with the rationale of the argument.
... until the rationality of the readers reaches a point where it can rationalize something which they could not before
So that's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... until the education\knowledge of the readers reaches a point where it can understand something which they could not before ...
If you reject the truth of the evidence it doesn't change the validity of the argument. You are at fault, not the argument. When you understand the evidence rather than reject it then you can correct your previous ignorant position.
If you reject the truth of the conclusion following from the evidence then you do not have a rationale basis for your argument. You are at fault, not the argument. When you understand the conclusion rather than reject it then you can correct your previous ignorant position.
As you can see this applies to all arguments that have a reason, a purpose, and which are supported by objective empirical evidence so that the relative truth of the premises can be judged.
Note "true" and "truth" are lowercase, meaning that they are not absolute values.
one is a conclusion based on evidence and logical validity,
the other is opinion with no justification, no rationale, no substance;
That I will take\accept the first over the second as being more valid\reasonable\persuasive every time. Thus between the multiple lines of conscilient evidence showing that the earth is old -- very very old, and your bald opinion\belief that the earth is 6000 years old, I find the old age credible and compelling and that your opinion\belief is rather silly.
And further I find that when you have no explanation how tree rings older than 6000 years can exist on a 6000 year old earth, that your opinion to be delusional:
That only what you think is valid?
No, that what I think based on evidence and sound logic, concepts that other people also hold in common, and that have been tested and replicated, are more likely to be valid expressions of reality than simple fantasy opinions.
I don't mind an opinionated man, because at least he has one.
Nor am I surprised by this comment, as it appears that this is all you have - opinion.
Re: Belief in science instead of fantasy ... or delusion ...
You keep saying I am delusional, ...
Mild delusion is curable through education, through learning the real science and the real knowledge we have of "life the universe and oh everything" (Douglas Adams), in learning to discard the false beliefs you have been told.
I also happen to like the pun.
... do you want it to stick or haven't you yet figured out that an insane person won't listen? How sharp is your logic then?
There are 2 audiences for comments made here -- first the person being replied to (ie you), and second all the other readers, especially the lurkers.
There have also been a couple of people here who posted much like you, but who now accept an old earth with an absence of a noachin flood (they have told me so), so there is always hope that people will turn away from ignorance to accept the reality that is around us.
Do you have any evidence, logical evidence of course, ...?
Yes. You have already presented it.
You claim the earth is only 6,000 years old, but simple evidence from tree rings show this concept is invalid, that the earth must be at least as old as the oldest tree ring.
You continue to believe in a 6000 year old earth and you have consistently refused to deal with this simple fact of an older age presented by the tree rings, nor even begin to address the further evidence of older age presented on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, and failure to do this is a failure to confront reality.
Evidence does not go away when you ignore it.
No, we should teach faith (that works by love) and reasoning in school.
I have no problems teaching about all the different faiths in a comparative religion class, where students can use logic and critical thinking to compare and contrast all the different beliefs.
I have no problem teaching the history of religious involvement in historical movements or about the involvement of religions in causing wars and persecutions of people, and how those still haunt our society. Especially if fundamentalist versions are contrasted with allegorical versions of the same religions as espoused by different sects.
AND I have absolutely no problem with teaching logic and critical thinking to students as early as they can understand the concepts. Teaching students how to be an open-minded skeptic, how to be skeptical of your own beliefs, and how to question everything ... and how to find answers that fit with the reality that is our universe.
But I do have problems with injecting a particular religion into science classes ... unless it is a 15 minute demonstration of how completely inadequate religious faith is to provide a scientific basis for understanding how things work in the universe.
Be aware: to show that the whole thread is wrong you need to show how those results could happen in such a way that they all agree on ages, why they all fit into an overall package that agrees with itself from a number of different fields and sets of evidence.
Your continued avoidance of this issue is all the proof I need that you maintain your belief in spite of evidence to the contrary, that the main mechanism you use to maintain your belief is to try to ignore the contrary evidence to delude yourself into thinking it isn't real. It's part of cognitive dissonance behavior.
-And what do you do when the independent research shows your opinion to be faulty?
Then it's the independent v's the majority. What does history show about individuals who stand out from the majority? It' not a criterion for truth but often the case.
You seem to miss the point again. Badly, and you have made the logical fallacy of equivocation "the independent" is not the same "independent" as in "independent research" which you then follow with the logical fallacy of popularity as a valid metric for truth.
What history shows is that science gets it right most of the time, and improves its accuracy over time, while opinion is much less indicative of future results. If having better results in the long run, in history, then you (by your argument of "not a criterion for truth but often the case") should choose the scientific answer rather than your opinion.
In addition, historically it is the scientist that is the independent thinker and is the one who stands out in history. Like Darwin.
There is a state of mind which denies reality by its own system of beliefs, and claims to have evidence for its own system, while calling anything outside of it delusional. It is impossible for such a mind to be able to escape from that state of denial, even though the evidences are all around. So no evidence will be of any use to such a person, as they will only accept what they already think they know. Ephesians 4:17 -19 KJV.
Recognizing your problem is the first stage to resolving it. As I have said before, delusion is curable by education, by learning, by becoming an open-minded skeptic who is as skeptical of their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of others, by being willing to learn.
A criteria you can use, is how many things, how much of reality, must you deny in order for your belief system to be workable -- the less reality you need to deny the more in tune with reality is your belief system. Here are two items in specific:
(1) The earth is old, very very old. (2) There was no noachin flood.
The evidence for these two items fills the world around you. Accepting these truths does not mean giving up faith, rather it means having faith in tune with reality. As a deist I believe that science is the best method for understanding how the universe was created.
The evidence that this is true comes from the fact that they cannot overcome their self destructive habits, ...
You can do it. Others have.
If I have tree ring chronologies that extend past 12,000 years, which is more likely to be in tune with reality:
(a) the earth is 6,000 years old, or (b) the earth is at least 12,000 years old
Can you explain how (a) could possibly be in tune with reality?
Do you agree that "the earth is flat" is not a view in tune with reality?
Do you agree that "the earth is the center of the universe" is not a view in tune with reality?
... something which even evolution should not be in favor of.
™ Version 4.2
