Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 226 of 326 (461932)
03-28-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Beretta
03-28-2008 9:49 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
quote:
Why is there residual C14 in all the sedimentary strata?
Here's a hint: look up the byproducts of natural decay of radioactive elements. Then learn where many of these radioactive elements are. Oh the joys of education!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Beretta, posted 03-28-2008 9:49 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 227 of 326 (461981)
03-29-2008 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Percy
03-28-2008 10:43 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Sunset Crater -dated by tree rings at about 1000 years
K-Ar put it at 200 000 years
Mt St Helens (produced in 1980) radiometrically dated at 0.35 +/- 0.05 mill years
Wood buried by a basalt flow in Australia -the wood was dated at about 45000 years by C14 and the basalt at 45 million years by K-Ar
Mt Ngauruhoe In New Zealand -five K-Ar datings of andesite lava flows. Dates ranged from 0.27-3,5 mill years but one occurred in 1949,three in 1954 and one in 1975
So many examples, I won't repeat them all.
Too many assumptions and the original 'dates' were invented using 19th century theory about how old the rock layers should be.
Each strata is a certain age because of certain key fossils in it
AND the fossils in the strata are a certain age because evolutionary theory says they should be that age.No wonder the real dating that happens is so off. How can we possibly trust it when it is so wrong for dates we are absolutely sure of.
Faith in evolution.
Radioactive dating is just so popular because it gives long ages and you know why we need those!So many suppositions, none of which can be confirmed - but long ages are what we need.
I think it is just self deception that keeps this thing going.
Now you can argue against all this evidence, but it *is* evidence and clearly indicates that the constancy of radioactive decay rates is not accepted on faith.
What I wonder is just how many 'dates' had to be thrown out to get these tables of 'acceptable' data.
If creationist scientists can't get published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals, then the solution is not to argue that they deserve special treatment, but to improve the quality of their research so that it *is* accepted for publication.
Nobody ever asked for special treatment -just to be heard and not to be penalized just because they don't follow the current party line. It's not got to do with the quality of the research, just with the conclusions which are not acceptable to the ruling orthodoxy.
If a bug ever changed into a reptile it would be evidence that there is something massively wrong with the theory of evolution.
Since large scale evolution doesn't happen today, that appears to be evidence against evolution but the amazing thing (and I have seen it before) is that evolutionists take even the lack of evidence to be evidence for their theory.
These thought convolutions just prove to me that they don't need real proof to be convinced -faith is all that is needed.
When we look at the inherited changes actually happening in living things, we see information either staying the same (recombining in different ways) or being corrupted or lost (mutation, extinction), but never do we see anything which could qualify as a real informationally uphill evolutionary change.
Fossils are dead things and it takes a lot of faith in the absence of evidence to imagine (as Aig puts it) that fish could turn into philosophers given enough time.
The reality is that loss of information is occurring -the train is going in the wrong direction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 03-28-2008 10:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by obvious Child, posted 03-29-2008 4:31 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 03-29-2008 8:45 AM Beretta has replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 228 of 326 (461985)
03-29-2008 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Beretta
03-29-2008 2:49 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Could you define 'Cogenetic" for me?
As for sunset crater...more lies.
Mt St Helens
CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite
You're going to have to cite the Australia example.
quote:
Mt Ngauruhoe In New Zealand -five K-Ar datings of andesite lava flows. Dates ranged from 0.27-3,5 mill years but one occurred in 1949,three in 1954 and one in 1975
I'm going to try to explain to you something.
Let's say you've made five batches of spaghetti over the course of a month. You've saved some of each, even then month old sample. Now if you mix all five samples together and ask someone to figure out how old the 'sample' is by tasting and smelling it, do you think they could do so accurately?
This represents the giant fraud of creationists dating. They deliberately take non-cogenetic samples, test them knowing full well that they're going to get screwed up dates and call dating all wrong.
In my example, you'd call the person's taste buds and nose screwed up because they couldn't figure out that the sample wasn't a mix of various samples.
Edited by obvious Child, : link fixing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Beretta, posted 03-29-2008 2:49 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Beretta, posted 03-29-2008 7:13 AM obvious Child has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 229 of 326 (461989)
03-29-2008 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by obvious Child
03-29-2008 4:31 AM


Lies, fraud and screwed up dates!
Well you sure are a dedicated fundamentalist!(people that get really excited about their beliefs) There's no chance of anything being wrong with any of your arguments since your support crew at talkorigins is as dogmatic and convicted as you are and they squash every argument and you trust them.(faith I believe).
So we have a problem - you trust your sources that support your argument, I trust my sources and they're all scientists as well.
How about we get to the point where we understand that these historical concepts are interpretations of the same data?!
We see dogs begetting dogs of all kinds and never anything but a dog and we interpret that to mean that these varieties have limits -assumption based on evidence.
You see all different dead things in the rock layers and interpret this to mean that the "earlier" ones (assumption of time) can, over time,mutate and select to produce the later ones- assumption based on faith in the principle of evolution.
In other words, matter is all there is and so new kinds can only be produced by pre-existing kinds changed over time.
We, on the other hand, believe that an intelligence beyond matter injected order into matter and produced a genetic code.There is no proof that matter organizes itself into intelligent information that can change into new and different intelligent information with time -which is why we don't believe it!
So we have faith that there is a creator that has actually done things with matter and you believe that since you can't prove the existance of the creator therefore only material explanations can possibly account for everything that exists.
So we all have faith.
If you have 5 different samples all under 100 years old but you get a date excessively beyond any one of them then I don't think the mixing of samples has anything to do with the problem here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by obvious Child, posted 03-29-2008 4:31 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by obvious Child, posted 03-29-2008 11:44 PM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 230 of 326 (461995)
03-29-2008 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by obvious Child
03-28-2008 5:26 PM


Re: Uniformitarianism
But what's your take on the lack of any repeatable evidence and experiments by 'creation science.'
Origins science is not observable or repeatable -that works for us and for you.
why is there absolutely no commercial application of creationist geology? Magic anyone? Hocus Pocus? Open Sesame?
Creationist geology I presume refers to our interpretations of the evidence in attempting to explain what has happened in the past.
Every geologist, creationist or evolutionist, uses the laws of matter for technological advancement. The difference is only in our interpretation of what happened in the past.
France produces a huge amount of power from nuclear reactors. The fundamental basis for such power generation is uniformatarnism in radioactivity.
Well we all know how to use geological processes to our advantage now. Our difference of opinion is only in what may have been the case in the distant past. We all use present radioactive decay rates to our advantage as a civilization. Just because it is quite feasible that there may have been a burst of more rapid radioactive decay in the past doesn't mean we are going to use those past possibilities in our now technology.You appear to be determined to misunderstand and not differentiate between experimental science and origins science.
The fundamental basis for such power generation is uniformatarnism in radioactivity.
Well yes, we know what the rate is now and we apply that rate to technology -I would think that would be obvious and practical and have nothing to do with the real argument here.
Why would we reject uniformatarnism when ENTIRE NATIONS have huge practical, tangible, energy producing programs that are fundamentally rested upon those assumptions?
Tell me what assumptions you are talking about. Different elements currently decay at measurable rates -that is not an assumption, it is an experimentally verifiable fact. Uniformatarian assumptions about the past have nothing to do with this.
Furthermore, your 'one' example of how dating is wrong is a massive lie. And why wouldn't we accept it? What evidence suggest that uniformatarnism is wrong?
Everything I say is a massive lie in your book -you repeat yourself. Calm down.Hyperbole is unnecessary.
If I cooked something yesterday and it burned, it does not mean it is going to burn today. Different heat, different outcome. Perhaps something happened in the past to cause a rapid burst of decay. How do you know what the graph looks like? You can't extrapolate into the past according to what you want to believe.We don't know what happened in the past -we weren't there. We interpret according to the evidence in the present and lots of assumptions are involved.
If you're so determined to believe that everything is exactly the same now as it ever was then why do you believe in macro-evolution?
Care to define 'allele' for me and repeat your claim with a straight face?
We both know what an allele is so what's your point? My face has remained straight throughout -it's only you that interprets everything I say as a lie or a deception based on an underlying desire to fool myself and anybody else I can in the process.
How can you possibly interpret my intentions the way you do? Or is that just a characterization you apply uniformly to all non-evolutionists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by obvious Child, posted 03-28-2008 5:26 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-30-2008 12:18 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 234 by obvious Child, posted 03-30-2008 12:36 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 237 by Granny Magda, posted 03-30-2008 9:15 AM Beretta has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 231 of 326 (461996)
03-29-2008 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Beretta
03-29-2008 2:49 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Beretta writes:
So many examples, I won't repeat them all.
You keep losing sight of the topic. This thread isn't about evolution or radiometric dating. It's about whether science is faith-based. Radiometric dating is just an example we're using.
I've been arguing that the foundation of scientific investigation is the gathering of evidence from the natural world, and to support my claim that science's position on radiometric dating is supported by a great deal of evidence I provided lists of many studies about the age of Greenland and lunar rocks, which comprise just a tiny proportion of all radiometric studies that confirm a great age for the earth.
You in turn offered counter evidence that radiometric dating is unreliable.
Now, keeping in mind that the validity of radiometric dating isn't the topic, it is unnecessary to continue discussion of it because information relevant to the topic is already very, very evident. Both you and I are supporting our positions with (and let me stress this again) *evidence*.
Evidence, not faith.
Radioactive dating is just so popular because it gives long ages and you know why we need those!
I think you're finally begin to touch upon the faith issue. No, I don't know why we need long ages, please explain.
What I wonder is just how many 'dates' had to be thrown out to get these tables of 'acceptable' data.
So now it's a multi-generational scientific conspiracy? Let's leave conspiracy theories out of this thread, okay? If you want to discuss such a conspiracy you should propose a new thread.
Nobody ever asked for special treatment...
Nobody ever asked for special treatment? Do you read the news? Creationists are constantly causing dust-ups by requesting laws and school board policies that give special treatment to their views.
... -just to be heard and not to be penalized just because they don't follow the current party line. It's not got to do with the quality of the research, just with the conclusions which are not acceptable to the ruling orthodoxy.
The only penalty is for poor science. Creationist views will only enter the classroom in the same way as all other science, by first gathering and presenting sufficient evidence and arguments to persuade the scientific community. Einstein didn't go to school boards arguing for equal time for relativity before Eddington's solar eclipse photos clinched the deal. Wegener didn't ask state legislatures to pass laws for equal representation for plate tectonic theories before conclusive evidence began rolling in.
When creationists start focusing their efforts on doing science instead of public relations, then they might begin making progress as a science. As it stands today, creation science has not made any progress since its formal beginnings more than half a century ago. During a period that saw us land on the moon and put powerful computers in every home, creation science has made no progress within scientific circles whatsoever.
But if mainstream science were really so far off the rails, then creation science would have little difficulty producing better scientific results and drawing thousands of budding young scientists to their doors, all hopeful for Nobel Prizes working beneath the new paradigm. Bible colleges across the country would become the new centers of scientific study, while the laboratories at universities like MIT, Stanford, Michigan and CalTech would gather dust. Creation science would supplant and replace mainstream science by the superiority of its results.
So if, as you state, mutation is truly misunderstood by mainstream science and can actually only cause a loss of information, then creation science researchers should be able to exploit that insight in the development of new drugs and treatment regimens. Creation scientists could become responsible for a wondrous explosion of new medical possibilities and thereby prove the validity of their perspectives on biology, with other fields of science to follow, perhaps by developing better strategies for finding oil and thereby lending support to their geological views.
But all this is off-topic. I've already said so much that is off-topic that I won't address the last couple paragraphs of your post that contained a number of basic errors about evolution. I'll just say that to prove evolution wrong you'll have to address things it actually says, not your own misconceptions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Beretta, posted 03-29-2008 2:49 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Beretta, posted 03-30-2008 4:43 AM Percy has replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 232 of 326 (462061)
03-29-2008 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Beretta
03-29-2008 7:13 AM


Re: Lies, fraud and screwed up dates!
Not a single factual reply to how your examples are wrong.
The sad thing is, the lies you peddled were already refuted years ago.
quote:
I trust my sources and they're all scientists as well.
Since when was getting a fake degree from a diploma mill make you a 'scientists?'
If I start my own fake college and start handing out BS in chemistry and biology to people on the street, does that make them scientists? Under your logic, yes.
quote:
We see dogs begetting dogs of all kinds and never anything but a dog and we interpret that to mean that these varieties have limits -assumption based on evidence.
Opposed to assumptions based on what a book said so, with absolutely no evidence to support its claims?
quote:
.There is no proof that matter organizes itself into intelligent information that can change into new and different intelligent information with time -which is why we don't believe it!
Organizes itself? What do you mean? Care to explain to me meiosis? It appears you are simply spewing stuff without actually understanding what you are saying in the hopes that something sticks. That's the glish glop.
quote:
So we all have faith.
Apparently you believe that nuclear energy is 'faith based.'
quote:
If you have 5 different samples all under 100 years old but you get a date excessively beyond any one of them then I don't think the mixing of samples has anything to do with the problem here.
Did you even understand my example?
Why is that you refuse to define 'co-genetic?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Beretta, posted 03-29-2008 7:13 AM Beretta has not replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 233 of 326 (462063)
03-30-2008 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Beretta
03-29-2008 8:16 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Beretta writes:
... Well we all know how to use geological processes to our advantage now. Our difference of opinion is only in what may have been the case in the distant past. We all use present radioactive decay rates to our advantage as a civilization. Just because it is quite feasible that there may have been a burst of more rapid radioactive decay in the past doesn't mean we are going to use those past possibilities in our now technology...
... we know what the rate is now and we apply that rate to technology -I would think that would be obvious and practical and have nothing to do with the real argument here...
... Different elements currently decay at measurable rates -that is not an assumption, it is an experimentally verifiable fact. Uniformatarian assumptions about the past have nothing to do with this.
You are suggesting that it is "quite feasible" for certain observed physical constants -- the rates of decay for specific radio-active elements -- to have been drastically different at some point in the past, and that this makes YEC assertions about the "true" age of the earth plausible in some scientific sense.
But the sole basis for asserting a drastic change in decay rates at some point in time (e.g. "the stuff decayed much faster prior to... um... 4000 BC, give or take a few dozen/hundred years") is still nothing more than a quizzical belief in a particular "literal" interpretation of biblical text -- which is dubious prima facie, given that most people who read the same text and accept one or another interpretation of its religious doctrines do not accept this particular "literal" interpretation. They prefer to view it as allegory or metaphor or some other figurative sense.
In other words, the biblical basis for asserting changes over time in decay rates is flimsy just on biblical grounds, and there is no other authority or evidence or suggestion for asserting that the rates of decay could or should have changed at any time, ever, since the point at which these elements first came into existence.
Also, you are leaving out some important considerations in asserting the "feasibility" of such changes in decay rates. The rate of decay is not simply some arbitrary number assigned at God's whim to this or that element. It relates directly to other observable facts about the elements in question, the behaviors of subatomic particles in general, and the relations that these facts and behaviors have to other clearly observed physical constants.
I'm not a nuclear or cosmological physicist, so I don't have direct knowledge of all the related known facts, but based on what I can understand, I would fully expect that a change in rate of decay for various elements would entail changes in some other constants whose role in physics is considerably less variable -- maybe even the speed of light, for instance.
If someone manages to figure out what these entailments are, and then wants to try to assert that additional changes of related constants must also have taken place, just for the sake of supporting YEC assertions based on dubious interpretations of the Bible, there's a better-than-even chance that they'll end up with real problems -- maybe Adam and Eve had to be 12 inches tall (or the earth would have had to be 6 times larger), because of the different gravitation constant that would need to be posited on the basis of the different rate of radioactive decay. Or maybe life as we know it couldn't have existed under that different set of constants, or would have been terminated at the point where the constants changed, because they could not survive such violence to their physical composition. I don't know for sure, but personally I don't see the need for checking that out.
Uniformitarianism is just a lot more plausible. When the observable evidence is consistent, the better plan is to base further research and conclusions on that consistency, until observable evidence is found that reveals inconsistency. In the case of radioactive decay rates, evidence of inconsistency has not been seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Beretta, posted 03-29-2008 8:16 AM Beretta has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 234 of 326 (462065)
03-30-2008 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Beretta
03-29-2008 8:16 AM


Take me to a magic show!
quote:
Origins science is not observable or repeatable -that works for us and for you.
Then explain to me why all of the oldest light comes from one spec. Not observable you say? Why is that we have created the building blocks for organic matter from non-life in the lab? Non-repeatable you say?
quote:
Creationist geology I presume refers to our interpretations of the evidence in attempting to explain what has happened in the past.
Every geologist, creationist or evolutionist, uses the laws of matter for technological advancement. The difference is only in our interpretation of what happened in the past.
Except that your interpretation rejects the long time line that is commonly accepted. It also argues that radioactive rates were different back then. While conventional geology and science has built numerous practical applications based on Old Earth beliefs. XOM, Chevron, Shell, Sinopec, etc all use old earth geology. Why is that no one uses any creation interpretations for commercial applications? The true test for an alleged breakthrough is whether or not it can be used. Why is that absolutely no creationists breakthroughs have been capitalized on? it is perhaps because those interpretations are completely wrong?
quote:
Just because it is quite feasible that there may have been a burst of more rapid radioactive decay in the past doesn't mean we are going to use those past possibilities in our now technology
Then why is there no evidence for this? Magic? Goddidit? Hocus Pocus? Modern radiology is based on uniformitarianism. Nowhere in the science does it suggest that radioactive rates will change or that any burst if speed will occur. The same principles are built into commercial reactors. Why would states risk massive disasters if your 'idea' was feasible? Changing rates could seriously disrupt the reaction. Just look at the backers of these plants. Usually not atheists.
quote:
You appear to be determined to misunderstand and not differentiate between experimental science and origins science.
Not at all. What experimental science has creationism done? (note you've still refused to define cogenetic.)
quote:
I would think that would be obvious and practical and have nothing to do with the real argument here.
Not at all. You don't want to deal with it because it blows an Arcturus sized hole in your belief.
quote:
Different elements currently decay at measurable rates -that is not an assumption, it is an experimentally verifiable fact. Uniformatarian assumptions about the past have nothing to do with this.
What? Uniformatarian assumptions have everything to do with that fact. They assume that these rates were the same in the past. Commercial application in finding some of these elements depends directly on finding elements that resulted from decay and visa versa. If these assumptions were false, why do mining companies use the assumed rates and go backwards? Clearly you are using a massively wrong belief on what Uniformatarism.
quote:
Everything I say is a massive lie in your book -you repeat yourself. Calm down.Hyperbole is unnecessary.
I refuted every example you gave except for the Australian one, which lacked sufficent information to find any data on. Your sources which I assume to be the foundation for your beliefs are lies. I'm not saying you are lying, but your sources and their authors are. Snelling for example is notorious for using non-cogenetic samples and declaring all dating wrong.
quote:
If I cooked something yesterday and it burned, it does not mean it is going to burn today.
Where are you going with this?
quote:
Different heat, different outcome. Perhaps something happened in the past to cause a rapid burst of decay.
Yet where is the evidence for this rapid burst? Where is the evidence for its cause? Magic? Goddidit? Hocus Pocus? All your rational is based on MAGIC.
quote:
How do you know what the graph looks like? You can't extrapolate into the past according to what you want to believe.
We can based on evidence. You are arguing that historical data graphed from current trends are wrong because something the past may have been different. That's okay. What we are attacking your arguments on and what you have been repeatively warned about by the mods is your lack of any evidence.
Where is the evidence to suggest different rates? Do you have any or is it all magic?
quote:
We don't know what happened in the past -we weren't there.
Therefore we cannot convict anyone of murder without witness. Oh wait. That example has been used time and time again to refute the nonsense you gave.
quote:
We interpret according to the evidence in the present and lots of assumptions are involved.
And when these assumptions are proved by commercial application, what do you have to say? Goddidit?
quote:
If you're so determined to believe that everything is exactly the same now as it ever was then why do you believe in macro-evolution?
Everything? No. I'm saying that the laws of physics haven't changed. That is very different from the things that the laws of physics act upon. Due to the massive lack of any evidence to suggest any differing rates, I reject your ideas. If you HAD evidence, you would have presented it.
quote:
We both know what an allele is so what's your point?
No, I don't think you do know what an allele is.
quote:
My face has remained straight throughout -it's only you that interprets everything I say as a lie or a deception based on an underlying desire to fool myself and anybody else I can in the process.
That's your response to my refutation of your sources?
Seriously.
quote:
How can you possibly interpret my intentions the way you do? Or is that just a characterization you apply uniformly to all non-evolutionists?
How about your refusal to answer basic questions? Or your running from your refuted posts? I'm very close to reporting you for using the glish glop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Beretta, posted 03-29-2008 8:16 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Beretta, posted 03-30-2008 9:41 AM obvious Child has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 235 of 326 (462070)
03-30-2008 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Percy
03-29-2008 8:45 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
my claim that science's position on radiometric dating is supported by a great deal of evidence I provided lists of many studies about the age of Greenland and lunar rocks, which comprise just a tiny proportion of all radiometric studies that confirm a great age for the earth.
You have data -I wonder how many results were chucked out in the gathering of the data -I hear that it is a high percentage that doesn't come out saying what it should according to the age theory invented in the 19th century.
Again you have too many incidences of dating carried out on rock of known age that come out completely vastly wrong -there is something very wrong with the method. Why trust it for rocks of unknown age?
You have evidence that radiometric dating works, I have evidence that you shouldn't trust those dates.
No, I don't know why we need long ages, please explain.
Without long ages the whole humpty dumpty of 'evolution from a common ancestor' bites the dust. You have to ignore all the dating techniques that indicate thousands not billions of years because evolution would not be feasible under those conditions.
So now it's a multi-generational scientific conspiracy?
No, its a worldview problem. If you are brainwashed into long ages and evolution and you "know" what results you should be getting according to the paradigm, those are the dates that you're going to submit -and you're going to believe that your other results must have had contamination and other preparation problems. Nobody wants to fail to fit in, it's not good for their careers.Humans fool themselves -if I know that something is 60O years old and I don't get that result, perhaps I will keep trying until I get something close enough to be acceptable.It's human nature. People that believe the geologic column dates are not going to be submitting what doesn't even vaguely fit - it's inconvenient and there'll always be some story to explain the 'wrong' dates away.Luckily radiometric dating is the dating method that keeps coming up with the correct sort of range (millions of years) so it is the most popular long age dating method by far.
Creationists are constantly causing dust-ups by requesting laws and school board policies that give special treatment to their views.
I frankly can only assume that you get that sort of rubbish from your over-enthusiastic cohorts. Often the laws that they try to amend don't even mention creation or evolution but try to eliminate problems with logical additions to law. For example there was a bill, I can't remember all the details, where they tried to get a clause in that insisted that textbooks be current and not full of outdated and disproven information.The idea was to get rid of all the 'proofs' for evolution that had been proven to be fraudulent -(for example Haeckel's embryos and some of the more well known ape-man farces). How can a battle be fought fairly when children all over the world are being taught known rubbish in the guise of science.
Yes it was an attempt to make the battle fair but there is nothing in the addition of that clause that should upset any fair-minded individual.
The other main battle through the courts is to allow for evidence against evolution to be allowed to be presented alongside the evidence for it. 'Science' should welcome such things in the interests of fairness - but they shun it because up till now every bit of rubbish that sounded like a support for evolution had to be taught uncritically -it's a protected worldview and it is time to put everything on the table and not allow evolutionists to act as the priests of a religion where the people dare not question those authorized to speak for 'science.'
Creationist views will only enter the classroom in the same way as all other science, by first gathering and presenting sufficient evidence and arguments to persuade the scientific community.
Well Intelligent Design is doing that - using scientific arguments for design. They are starting to be heard by those that realize that a new paradigm is coming and this state of unfairness that exists in what is supposed to be science will not survive the scrutiny aimed at it. It's been a long battle just to be heard but now it can no longer be ignored.
The problem with evolutionists which is particularly obvious on this site is that you keep bolstering each other up with your PRATT story so that half of your own people don't know what's really going on out there.You're not even going to be able to understand the argument if you don't start listening to the original sources rather than submitting to propoganda that mocks and demeans something they refuse to understand. 'Science' has become like a certain religion (which will remain nameless) - deaf and dumb to their own problems, shouting the party line with unrestrained enthusiasm, mocking the unbelievers -believing them to be infidels to be silenced or exterminated and beyond all that,ready to die without even really investigating the possibility that they have spent a lifetime believing a lie.
When creationists start focusing their efforts on doing science instead of public relations
Well they have to first re-establish freedom of thought and expression which is being squashed and penalized in 'science' due to a minority priesthood that holds the microphone. There are far more that 1% of scientists questioning the current paradigm but they won't declare themselves openly because they know they will be criticized for daring to dissent, not to mention victimized and very possibly fired for their efforts.
You have to be brave to stand up for the rights of Judaism in a Muslim country you know.It's not all that easy in society to stand up for an unpopular opinion but if you believe it to be the truth, it's worth it.
The other problem, despite all the rubbish that evolutionists publish about funding for creation and intelligent design, is that evolutionists get funded by endless tax dollars while dissenters get nothing unless they can get private funding.That slows down research efforts though I have heard that a fair bit is going on under the noses of the evolutionary overseers by people who don't support the regime.How do you declare yourself if the price you pay is to lose your job and not be able to support your family?
drawing thousands of budding young scientists to their doors, all hopeful for Nobel Prizes working beneath the new paradigm
With any luck and good management that will be the future. First the old guard needs to retire and give way to new ideas.
As it stands today, creation science has not made any progress since its formal beginnings more than half a century ago.
Well now that is public relations propoganda for you. That's like saying that Zimbabwe loves all that Robert Mugabe has done for their country -completely out of touch with reality.Do you really believe that???
During a period that saw us land on the moon and put powerful computers in every home, creation science has made no progress within scientific circles whatsoever.
The problem with that statement is that it is often non-evolutionists that invent these technological marvels but their evolution/creation leanings have absolutely no bearing on the state of technological advancement. Evolutionists seem purposefully blind to that distinction -operational science and origins science. It's like a public relations ploy to make the uninformed believe that the lights would go out if creationists were allowed to have their say.It's all hype.
So if, as you state, mutation is truly misunderstood by mainstream science and can actually only cause a loss of information, then creation science researchers should be able to exploit that insight in the development of new drugs and treatment regimens
I'm sure they will.
Creation scientists could become responsible for a wondrous explosion of new medical possibilities and thereby prove the validity of their perspectives on biology, with other fields of science to follow, perhaps by developing better strategies for finding oil and thereby lending support to their geological views.
They probably are already doing what they can under restrained conditions but will be free to research in different directions with time and an openness to the problems of the current paradigm.
I'll just say that to prove evolution wrong you'll have to address things it actually says, not your own misconceptions
I imagine I will also have to obtain an education and be able to define the words "allele" and "cogentic" for 'obvious child' who is apparently sure that I don't even understand that much.All in good time -I'm enjoying my ignorance for the moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 03-29-2008 8:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Admin, posted 03-30-2008 9:17 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 03-30-2008 11:43 AM Beretta has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 236 of 326 (462076)
03-30-2008 9:06 AM


I haven't caught up with this thread yet today, but will within an hour or so. In the meantime I'm putting a strict off-topic quarantine on this thread. Do not post any off-topic discussion. If you post some off-topic discussion after this post but before seeing it, go back and edit your post now before I find it. Penalty is a 24 hour suspension.
This is, of course, mostly directed at Beretta. While contributing as Percy I thought I could influence him to stay on topic, and I posted short discussion in many of my recent posts that would begin something like, "This is off-topic, but...", and would end something like, "If you'd like to discuss this in more detail you should propose a new thread."
Beretta is taking none of the hints, so now this thread is going full-stop on off-topic discussion. I'm applying this equally to everyone, sorry.
This thread is for discussing whether science is faith-based in a manner similar to religion. Discussing anything else, particularly evolution and radiometric dating except to employ them as examples (and if you can't tell the difference that's your problem), will draw a suspension.
No replies, please.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 237 of 326 (462078)
03-30-2008 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Beretta
03-29-2008 8:16 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Anyone who chooses to reply to this post should make sure everything they say is on-topic. --Admin
Hi Beretta,
Creationist geology I presume refers to our interpretations of the evidence in attempting to explain what has happened in the past.
Every geologist, creationist or evolutionist, uses the laws of matter for technological advancement. The difference is only in our interpretation of what happened in the past.
Yes, and as OC has pointed out, some people use those "assumptions" to find oil. Perhaps you have an example of someone actually using creationist "science" to make predictions that come up with tangible and useful results within industry. If so, do please take it to the appropriate thread.
Well yes, we know what the rate is now and we apply that rate to technology -I would think that would be obvious and practical and have nothing to do with the real argument here.
Consider this; if the radioactive mood swings that you appear to be proposing are real, how could any nuclear reactor be safe? We have no idea what might have caused such changes, indeed, we have no evidence that they occurred at all (not surprising, since changes in decay rates are only considered important by creationists because they are aimed at explaining away all the evidence the contradicts an old Earth), so how can we know that the rates of decay won't change again? That would suggest that every nuclear power station on Earth might be in imminent danger of exploding due to a sudden shift in the laws of physics.
If you sincerely believe that radioactive decay is so unpredictable, what are doing wasting your time here? Shouldn't you be out there, campaigning t have these things shut down before they all go sky-high?
OK, company has arrived, I have to go. I may be able to answer this further later on.
Edited by Admin, : Add note at top.
Edited by Granny Magda, : Removed part; I had misinterpreted Beretta's point.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Beretta, posted 03-29-2008 8:16 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Beretta, posted 03-30-2008 10:56 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 238 of 326 (462079)
03-30-2008 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Beretta
03-30-2008 4:43 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
As I said in my previous post, I haven't caught up with this thread yet today, but I want to say this now.
I'm not going to let someone who has to be closely monitored as to topic have free rein on the site. We have a number of enforcement options, and you've experienced one already when I limited your message rate. If this is going to be a constant thing with you of not staying on-topic then you may as well voluntarily cease participating, because you'll soon be permanently suspended anyway.
I can't get any more clear than that.
Randman received the same warning recently. I believe I suspended him several times, longer each time, and on his latest return he has stayed on-topic.
Rob received a 4-week suspension for posting sermons for the umpteenth time in a science debate, then had another member post for him. Both were suspended permanently.
This isn't braggadocio, I'm just trying to convince you I'm serious about this so that you modify your behavior, because we'd like to keep you around, which won't happen if you can't stay on-topic.
Please, no replies.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Beretta, posted 03-30-2008 4:43 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 239 of 326 (462081)
03-30-2008 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by obvious Child
03-30-2008 12:36 AM


Re: Take me to a magic show!
If this post hasn't been modified to focus strictly on the topic by 11 AM eastern time today, I'll be suspending Beretta for 24 hours. --Admin
Why is that we have created the building blocks for organic matter from non-life in the lab?
Sorry can't answer that question specifically -off-topic question.
It also argues that radioactive rates were different back then.
Well how would you explain the high concentration of helium still in the rocks and the lack in the atmosphere? Faith in an old earth interpretation of some data to the exclusion of other data.
Why is that absolutely no creationists breakthroughs have been capitalized on?
Off topic question
The same principles are built into commercial reactors. Why would states risk massive disasters if your 'idea' was feasible? Changing rates could seriously disrupt the reaction.
Except that we are talking about something that may have happened in the past - exceptional circumstances. We have a now rate and work with that.Knowing that it was always so doesn't change how we operate with the rates as they are right now.Observation and calculation shows us that the rates are pretty predictable now. If something else happened in the past, it really would be a stretch to worry about it now.It's history.
note you've still refused to define cogenetic.
How about you define 'historical'and 'origins' so that I can be sure that you know the difference between experimental and historical(origins) science? Definitions would be off-topic so google for your answers.
Yet where is the evidence for this rapid burst? Where is the evidence for its cause?
A lack of helium that should be in the atmosphere if all this radioactive decay has been going on for hundreds of millions of years.An excess of helium still in the rocks when it should have permeated out if all this vast time has passed.That is the evidence. As for the cause, I wasn't there. There are people with various theories though.
Beretta writes:
We don't know what happened in the past -we weren't there.
Therefore we cannot convict anyone of murder without witness.
It's a whole lot easier to gather evidence now than it is to put together a clear picture of the past when absolutely no-one was there.I really don't think you can equate the two.You have to have far more faith to put together a picture from selected evidence especially when it was, apparently, hundreds of millions of years ago.
You are arguing that historical data graphed from current trends are wrong because something the past may have been different.
Exactly.Other evidences defy the uniformatarian assumptions and no-one was there so it isn't recorded anywhere.We need to weigh up all the evidence not just the stuff that agrees with our worldview.
And when these assumptions are proved by commercial application
Experimental science allows for commercial applications not historical assumptions.
If you're so determined to believe that everything is exactly the same now as it ever was then why do you believe in macro-evolution?
Everything? No. I'm saying that the laws of physics haven't changed.
What if the laws of biology, genetics and reproduction haven't changed and macro-evolution is just faith-based wishful thinking extrapolated into the distant past?
If you HAD evidence, you would have presented it.
And you ignore everything I present in any case or refer me to the PRATT department of denial.We're supposed to be dealing with why evolutionary science is as much faith-based as other religions.I think we should stick with that.
I'm very close to reporting you for using the glish glop.
Go ahead, they're onto me already for off-topically answering your off-topic questions anyway.
Edited by Admin, : Add note at top.
Edited by Admin, : Sign note at top.
Edited by Beretta, : Off -topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by obvious Child, posted 03-30-2008 12:36 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by obvious Child, posted 04-01-2008 4:34 PM Beretta has not replied

OurCynic
Junior Member (Idle past 5842 days)
Posts: 18
From: Lakewood, CO USA
Joined: 03-25-2008


Message 240 of 326 (462083)
03-30-2008 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by bluegenes
03-28-2008 12:23 AM


quote:
We appear to be talking at cross purposes. Here's a suggestion for you. If we have beliefs, like Joe's, based on faith rather than evidence, and those beliefs are often held so strongly that people will, as you say, kill or die for them, then isn't an enormous amount of conflict in humanity inevitable? Because the claimed "truths" are not based on evidence, then we inevitably have a lot of conflicting "truths".
Sorry I havnt replied in so long. Yes I suppose Ive been too busy philosophizing to know much. that's why I'm a cynic. Yes conflict is inevitable, without communication or understanding, which you equate to having evidence.
Anyway I'm not trying to argue that faith has anything to do with a belief thats based in reality. I dont know where you got that idea. I'm saying that the reality of it is that people have beliefs, whatever system of belief it is, is still a system of belief. I understands it ruffles some feathers in this community because that statement could be misconstrued and taken completely out of context, to attack science. Which would be absurd. As many times as I've been able to illuminate why that's absurd I dont think I'll try. I'm not interested in arguing the semantics of the statement.
It would however be narcissistic to say that I dont really care what people believe, if its not based in reality. As reality itself is still something that cannot be understood completely. If people were simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand them. I suppose its a waste of time; really, trying to put any kind of conformist notion to what people believe, to try and establish any criteria for it, to try and apply some kind of utilitarian principle to beliefs. Its all really just dogma. Its what creates these incessant cults with thier creed, thier criteria for who I ought to be. So I say to heck with it, why is it even important to be interested in what people believe, or whether or not its based in this notion of reality.
Edited by OurCynic, : spotted a typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by bluegenes, posted 03-28-2008 12:23 AM bluegenes has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024