Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
347 online now:
dwise1, jar (2 members, 345 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,271 Year: 5,917/14,102 Month: 65/438 Week: 109/83 Day: 11/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
jar
Member
Posts: 33497
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 46 of 207 (730378)
06-27-2014 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
06-27-2014 3:22 PM


why wiki may be a poor source
Sorry, this is getting confused. I'm not talking about that paper which is well enough organized and explained, I was talking about a Wikipedia article, I forget why now, about the K-T boundary as a typical example of how such phenomena are presented to laypeople. Definitely typical and definitely irritating.

Do you understand how Wiki works?

Edited by jar, : change sub-title


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 3:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 10:21 PM jar has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 207 (730391)
06-27-2014 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
06-27-2014 3:54 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia as such. It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact. Just about the first post, or possibly the first, I made at EvC back in 2001 was a complaint about this way these sciences are presented to the public.

Edited by Faith, : Get rid of all caps and change a couple words


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 06-27-2014 3:54 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 06-27-2014 11:23 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2014 12:06 AM Faith has responded
 Message 56 by dwise1, posted 06-28-2014 3:13 AM Faith has responded
 Message 117 by edge, posted 07-18-2014 1:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33497
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 48 of 207 (730396)
06-27-2014 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
06-27-2014 10:21 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia as such. It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact. Just about the first post, or possibly the first, I made at EvC back in 2001 was a complaint about this way these sciences are presented to the public.

Popular accounts are just that, popular accounts. The reasoning is readily available even in that wiki article if you follow the footnotes.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 10:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 49 of 207 (730403)
06-28-2014 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
06-27-2014 10:21 PM


Re:Libraries
It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia as such. It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact. Just about the first post, or possibly the first, I made at EvC back in 2001 was a complaint about this way these sciences are presented to the public.

You can get increasing levels of detail and the reasoning behind it in libraries. The evidence for the topics we have been discussing take up whole floors of major university libraries. Feel free to access that information to the level you desire.

So don't moan that the information presented to the public doesn't contain the detail of a Ph.D. dissertation.

But I fail to see why you should care--you don't rely on evidence anyway.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 10:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:09 AM Coyote has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 50 of 207 (730404)
06-28-2014 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coyote
06-28-2014 12:06 AM


Re: Re:Libraries
That is far from the point I'm trying to make. I don't care about the detailed arguments, what I care about is how the public is being brainwashed by a presentation of questionable material as fact. There is no way to rationalize this. Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2014 12:06 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2014 12:13 AM Faith has responded
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2014 2:40 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2014 6:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 51 of 207 (730405)
06-28-2014 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:09 AM


Re: Re:Libraries
Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public.

And TRUE (or TRVE) science is what creationists say it is?

What a joke!

I've advised you before, stay far away from science. You simply aren't qualified.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:09 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:17 AM Coyote has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 52 of 207 (730406)
06-28-2014 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Coyote
06-28-2014 12:13 AM


Re: Re:Libraries
You don't know one thing about what I'm qualified for. The only thing I've ever objected to is the HISTORICAL sciences. Get a clue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2014 12:13 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2014 12:37 AM Faith has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 53 of 207 (730407)
06-28-2014 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:17 AM


Re: Re:Libraries
You don't know one thing about what I'm qualified for. The only thing I've ever objected to is the HISTORICAL sciences. Get a clue.

Not so, we know exactly what you are qualified for--by reading hundreds of your posts.

You feel you can pick and choose among various fields all of which use the scientific method based on whether or not you like the results.

And your posts are a horrible mix of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, denial, obfuscation, and anti-science mumbo-jumbo, mixed liberally with things you just make up. Collectively, your posts are just about the opposite of what science really is.

I'd sooner discuss science with a first grader--at least they are capable of learning.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 1:38 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 54 of 207 (730415)
06-28-2014 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Coyote
06-28-2014 12:37 AM


Re: Re:Libraries
I wish you would go discuss science with a first grader and leave me alone because you don't get anything I'm saying. Again, the only "science" I've ever objected to is HISTORICAL science. You obviously don't know the difference but there is a true science that I do not have any problem with. Go talk to your first grader please.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2014 12:37 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 55 of 207 (730426)
06-28-2014 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:09 AM


Re: Re:Libraries
Sure Faith I see what you are saying. People are being told the truth! As a creationist it is your duty to use lies and slander to suppress it.

Popular accounts are popular accounts. People want them. There is nothing suspicious or evil about providing them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:09 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 56 of 207 (730432)
06-28-2014 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
06-27-2014 10:21 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia as such. It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact.

Yeah, and all your absolutist proclamations are totally different! A little less typical Christian hypocrisy, please!

You repeatedly make all kinds of unfounded proclamations. Show us your reasoning! In its totality! After all, you demand no less of others, so you must be ready to do the same yourself.

Or are you forgetting that Pharisee teaching:

quote:
Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself. That is the whole of the Law. The rest is just explanation.
(Rabbi Hillel, 20BCE)

But then, you have already told us how you would treat any source that met those criteria. You would ignore it completely!

A little less typical Christian hypocrisy, please!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 10:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 3:45 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 57 of 207 (730434)
06-28-2014 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
06-27-2014 2:07 PM


Faith Makes Stuff Up Again
Sometimes. Amazing though how many Wikipedia and other general articles just rattle off a bunch of mystifying conclusions about this or that, say the KT boundary for an example without even touching on the particular phenomena involved. It's all millions of years this and assumed events that. There is NO room for uncertainty in those common presentations.

No that's not the idea. They talk in terms of events as if they were facts, this happened, that happened, so many years ago. There was a meteor that killed off all the dinosaurs. Stated as fact.

That is far from the point I'm trying to make. I don't care about the detailed arguments, what I care about is how the public is being brainwashed by a presentation of questionable material as fact. There is no way to rationalize this. Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public.

Well, I looked at WP's actual article on the KT boundary.

* It has references to a score of peer-reviewed papers and half-a-dozen academic books.

* It describes the reasoning behind the conclusions, for example:

The evidence for the Alvarez impact theory is supported by chondritic meteorites and asteroids which have an iridium concentration of ~455 parts per billion, much higher than ~0.3 parts per billion typical of the Earth's crust. Chromium isotopic anomalies found in Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary sediments are similar to those of an asteroid or a comet composed of carbonaceous chondrites.

* So far from leaving "NO room for uncertainty" the article presents multiple hypotheses, and while it apparently favors Alvarez, it cautiously describes his idea as a hypothesis rather than a theory.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 2:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 58 of 207 (730435)
06-28-2014 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by dwise1
06-28-2014 3:13 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
I'm sure I can find scores of examples of what I'm talking about and it's no less objectionable with the footnotes.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by dwise1, posted 06-28-2014 3:13 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 3:46 AM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 59 of 207 (730436)
06-28-2014 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
06-28-2014 3:45 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
I'm sure I can find scores of examples of what I'm talking about and it's no less objectionable with the footnotes.

And yet the one example you gave turned out to be made up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 3:45 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 3:53 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 60 of 207 (730438)
06-28-2014 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 3:46 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
No, as I said it is a typical example. There is no excuse for presenting nonfactual material as if it were fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 3:46 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 3:59 AM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021