 |
Now you're talking ridiculous. Assumptions have to be made in order to have a workable idea of reality. Tell me one thing that we KNOW without assumptions?Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Also, you really need to understand that, to a scientist, a theory is closer to reality than a fact is. When you say something is not fact, but theory, you're really saying to me that it's closer to a description of reality.
Ridiculous? MmmQuote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
I can tell you several things we know without having to put in place an assumption as a premise.
Facts do not require assuptions.
We KNOW:
- GW Bush is president of the United States
- Queen elizabeth II is the Queen of England
Scientific fact that don't require assuptions:
- The sun rays increase melanin production in skin
-blood containing oxygen is red
-water evaporates
-water, when cooled below a certain temp, turns into ice
-the heart is the organ responsible for pumping blood through out the body
-we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide
The list goes on. All the above are scientific facts that we all KNOW and no one can dispute. You don’t need to assume anything to know the above with certainty. One thing all of the above have in common is that they are observable so it is fact. Science is to observe.
On the other hand you can not say that the world is 4.5 billion years old with certainty unless you were there in the begging when it began to observe. Assuming that the assumptions made in radio dating are correct then yes the earth is 4.5 billion years. But the bottom line is that it is not fact because there is a evidence to prove that the assumptions used are not valid and there is also a large amount of evidence to prove a much younger earth.
I put it to you that just like your claim that the technique used to date the earth is not accurate, perhaps the techniques that you use to observe that water evaporates (for example) are not accurate. You do not observe water evaporating directly you just observed some photons that reflected off the water evaporating several nanoseconds ago. You ASSUME that nothing happens in between to skew your data. Just like we did not observe the creation of the Earth directly, we just observe the decay rates of radioactive isotopes that the Earth was created out of 4.5 billion years ago. Science is not only about observation, but also about inference.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I think you may need to review the meaning of the common use of the word theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
The·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n. pl. -ries.
-Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Fact (făkt)
n.
-Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact
-Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
-A real occurrence; an event
-Something undisputably true or real
Fact is reality
I don't not have to assume anything to know water evaporates. I just have to open my eyes. Have you ever boiled a pot of water?Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
You assume that the photons are not changed between hitting the water and reaching your eyes. You assume that your eyes convert the light into the right electrical impulses. You assume that your brain interprets these impulses correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I could go on...
What? We're talking about the scientific use, not the common use.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
It's a scientific theory, not a common definition of theory. A scientific theory describes all available facts. It is a much higher held thing than a fact.
A scientist would call a common definition theory a hypothesis.
That is an irrational argument. So you are saying that to know that water is evaporating from a boiling pot I have to assume that my brain is really interpreting that I am seeing the vapor? Come on..Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
So you are saying to know that blood with oxygen is red I have to assume that my eyes actually see color? So to know I exists I have to assume what? That I am not crazy? What? That just sounds like a convenient stretch to me.
Even if all knowledge requires an assumption (which it doesn't), it does not mean that all assumptions are accurate. I happen to believe the assumptions made in order to facilitate for radio dating are not accurate. There has been in recent years the realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset. However if you believe they are accurate, then good for you. But the bottom line is no one can ever know with 100% certainty how old the earth is. There is certainly a lot more evidence to prove the earth is younger.
Whoa whoa whoa. 100% certainty? Have you never taken a science course? Science is all about estimating uncertainties so we know just how accurate our measurements are.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
In the case of the Earth, it is 4.55 billion years old to within about 1%, that's about 4.5 tens of millions of years error.
Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Capuchin, I'm not going to split hairs with you. The bottom line is that you have "faith" in the assumptions used for radio dating and I don't share the same faith in it. I and many other people have a valid reason to believe the assuptions are flawed. Not all scientists agree with the method which means it is not an undisputable fact.
All Scientist agree that blood that water evaporates.
[QUOTE]I really could'nt care less about science. All I am interested in is truth. If there is no certainty and it is all based on estimating uncertainties then that means there is a strong chance that the information is not accurate. So why should I believe the earth is 4.5billion years when I know that it is based on estimation of uncertainties, speculations and assuptions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
If you, knowing that radio-dating is not based on facts, believe it is true then I can conclude that you just have "faith" in it. I only hold true the branch of science that is accepted by ALL scientists and is undisputable. For example blood with oxygen is red, there is no scientific assuptions needed to know with certainty that blood containing oxygen is red. It is an undisputable scientific fact
Again this is your "belief" it is not fact because we do not know with certainty that the assuption put in place are accurate.Quote:
In the case of the Earth, it is 4.55 billion years old to within about 1%, that's about 4.5 tens of millions of years error.
Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions.
Scientists just don't agree about the accuracy to which it can be used. However no change in accuracy can reduce the age of the Earth from 4.55 billion years down to 6000 years! We're talking a 1% change in rate at most!!Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
[QUOTE=sassyT]Science is our best tool for finding the truth.Quote:
I really could'nt care less about science. All I am interested in is truth. If there is no certainty and it is all based on estimating uncertainties then that means there is a strong chance that the information is not accurate. So why should I believe the earth is 4.5billion years when I know that it is based on estimation of uncertainties, speculations and assuptions?
If you, knowing that radio-dating is not based on facts, believe it is true then I can conclude that you just have "faith" in it. I only hold true the branch of science that is accepted by ALL scientists and is undisputable. For example blood with oxygen is red, there is no scientific assuptions needed to know with certainty that blood containing oxygen is red. It is an undisputable scientific fact
Again this is your "belief" it is not fact because we do not know with certainty that the assuption put in place are accurate.
Knowing what the uncertainties are helps you to work out what the truth is to within certain boundaries. If there is an uncertainty, then it doesn't mean that it's not the truth... Does not mean that it is not based on facts. You're just twisting what I'm saying in order to further delude yourself. I don't believe you care about the truth, only the affirmation of your own beliefs.
no offense sass, but I don't think you can intelectually compete with cap, few can, but go past intellectual and to the heartQuote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I do not believe the world is 6000 years old because the Bible just says God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was dark and void. So we do not know what the time lapse was from this time to when God created man, trees animals etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
I believe there is no way of knowing how old the earth is. Like you said yourself we can devise models based on uncertainty and assumptions to try and "estimate" it. However assumptions are NOT facts and those who have faith in the assumptions will believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. There is no way of knowing whether the assumptions used are at all reasonable so it all comes down to whether you chose to have faith in it or not. I have no faith in radio dating.
There are many scientist who advocate for a much younger earth because the do not believe they assumptions used in radio dating are unlikely. Here is what one eminent scientists, Physics professor and researcher Dr. Sami Shaibani said about radio dating:
“In man-made dating methods, there is assumption upon assumption, plus a couple of more assumptions sprinkled in, plus some blind guesswork. And this masquerades as wonderful, legitimate methodology, but it's not.”
Like I said, if you believe it is "truth" then you have faith because there is no way to prove it as fact. Just don't try and pass it off as a scientific fact when it is not. Just because it is "generally accepted" does not make it true. It was generally accepted that the world was flat long ago, big deal.
[QUOTE=Capuchin]I think you need to revise these definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
truth (trūth)
n. pl. truths (trūTHz, trūths).
-Conformity to fact or actuality.
-Reality; actuality.
-a fact that has been verified; certainty
-accuracy
as·sump·tion (ə-sŭmp'shən)
n.
-The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
-Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition
-Presumption; arrogance.
-A minor premise.
Versus what? Invisible-god-made ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
It sounds like he is trying to justify his faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Just like you are trying to justfy your own faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
This Scientist, like many others, is honest because he has no agenda. Because the Bible does not claim the earth is 6K years old so either way, whether it is 5K years old or 100 billion years old, it make no difference to a christian because the time lapse from the earths creation to human creation is not specified.
Most scientist have an agenda. An old earth will facilitate for the theory of evolution because they need billion of years to make their theory even nearly possible. Scientist had determined the earth was 70 million years old until evolution need more years.
I see you have more trust in a book of which we do not know exactly who precisely wrote each of the various chapters, describing a deity of which we do not know if it exists, and - if it exists - of whom we can at best only BELIEVE that it has the powers and capacities described to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
A deity that in part one of the book is described as a tiran and blood thirsty murderer of children and women, while in part two that same deity is described - while in another format (disguised as his own son) - as an all-loving entity, while throughout the entire book we hear the deity repeating continuously the threat to humanity of "and if you do not do what I tell you to do ........".
And for you that book and the claims stated in that book make more sense and have more value to you than science and scientific evidence, that is based on supported objective evidence?
.
Yeah...
.
[QUOTE]I hope when you "we" that you are not including me because just because you do not know whether God exists or not, does not mean I don’t know either. I know with as much certainty as I know of my own existence that God exists and you can believe that or not but you believing me or not will not in any way alter the fact that I know God. I also know who wrote the Book, again you may not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
This is your perception and opinion of God and the Bible, and we are all entitled to our own opinions so I have no problem with that, however perceptions and opinions do not always reflect reality and in this case I can say you are misled. Before you go and criticize other people's beliefs maybe you should consider doing some research and get all the information instead of just picking bits and pieces of info taken out of context to conveniently suit and further your own interest in portraying a negative perseption.Quote:
A deity that in part one of the book is described as a tiran and blood thirsty murderer of children and women, while in part two that same deity is described - while in another format (disguised as his own son) - as an all-loving entity, while throughout the entire book we hear the deity repeating continuously the threat to humanity of "and if you do not do what I tell you to do ........".
Oh don't get me wrong, I believe is scientific facts. They undisputable. For example water evaporates. I just don't buy into presuptious theories that are not fundamentally rooted in fact. If you believe radio dating it true then I am no more believer in "faith" than you are because if you know science, then you should know that the assuptions used to facilitate for radio dating can not be proven true.Quote:
And for you that book and the claims stated in that book make more sense and have more value to you than science and scientific evidence, that is based on supported objective evidence?
You should take your own advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I do not criticize other people's beliefs. I was just pointing out to capuchin that his "belief" that radio dating is truth, is based on "faith" in that the assumptions used are accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by templelane
And this is where you're talking stupid. Any scientist who proves that evolution is wrong, and that how we got here is different from the theory of evolution, will get untold praise and riches. There's an easy nobel prize, they will be more famous than Einstein or Newton.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Science isn't some place where we all go to hold hands and praise each others theories. It's all about being critical of others' work, it's a competitive field. That's exactly why it's our best tool for finding the truth.
Why are people not managing to undermine the theory of evolution or prove that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old?? Because all of the evidence points to it being so!!
(By the way, we also measure the age of the solar system using helioseimology, the study of "earthquakes" on the Sun, using these to date the sun we get a figure very similar to the age of the Earth, wow!)
Here's the unabridged version of what you're actually saying:
I will say, however that the following advice is priceless, and should be heeded universally.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Well, you certainly had me fooled. It sure seemed like you criticized Cap's "belief" that "radio dating is truth".Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
What I don't get is this. If you don't think the Bible teaches that the earth is young, why are you so sure that radio-metric dating is wrong when it gives a result of a few billion years? According to your interpretation of the Genesis account, the rocks of the earth's crust and mantle could be that old, couldn't they?
[QUOTE]There is no need to become emotional and resorting to name calling. Lets just have a civil debate like mature adults.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Capuchin, I have not interest in all this. All I want is for you to acknowledge that radio dating is not scientific fact because it employs assuptions that can not be known to be factual.Quote:
Any scientist who proves that evolution is wrong, and that how we got here is different from the theory of evolution, will get untold praise and riches. There's an easy nobel prize, they will be more famous than Einstein or Newton.
Science isn't some place where we all go to hold hands and praise each others theories. It's all about being critical of others' work, it's a competitive field. That's exactly why it's our best tool for finding the truth.
Why are people not managing to undermine the theory of evolution or prove that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old?? Because all of the evidence points to it being so!!
The theory of evolution is also not scientific fact because we have not found the hundreds of transitional fossils that would be necessary to prove one species changed into another. Evolutionists themselve have admitted this fact. There is also an insurmountable amount of evidence that prove evolution is highly unlikely.
Like I said, just because a theory is generally accepted, does not mean it is truth. At one point the theory that the world was flat was generally accepted.
How convenient.. . more assuptions?Quote:
(By the way, we also measure the age of the solar system using helioseimology, the study of "earthquakes" on the Sun, using these to date the sun we get a figure very similar to the age of the Earth, wow!)
Isn't the bible the ultimate assumption?Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I apologise, perhaps ignorant is more accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
There is no solid evidence that shows that it is a fundamentally flawed method like you seem to believe it is. The most innaccuracy that we have measured is 1%, that's highly accurate for the kind of work we're doing! We would be happy with +/- 20%, but 1% is absolutely fantastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
20 years ago you would be right, but now we have a whole plethora of transitional forms. We have so many that show such gradual changes that scientists have arguments over where we should draw the species line between man and monkey.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Where is this unsurmountable amount of evidence? I have not seen a single thing over the past few years that I've been having these conversations.
And just because a theory might not be the truth, that doesn't mean that it is not the truth... It explains all available evidence, which is exactly what a theory should do.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
It's highly unlikely that 2 sets of completely different assumptions would come out with the same dates. You seem to still think that we want everything to fit together nicely and make assumptions to do so. This couldn't be further from what scientists do. We make observations, and if those differ from what our theories suggest, then we modify the theories to fit the new evidence. This allows our theories to become more accurate. Picking and choosing evidence that fits our theories is not how science works. That's a completely useless exercise for a scientist, both for the community and for their career.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
[QUOTE=sassyT]There are tons of transitional fossils for many different animal families. Donald Prothero has written a very eloquent book on the subject. This nice article describes a few more unusual animals and their transitional fossils, rather than going for the easy ones like whales and horses.Quote:
The theory of evolution is also not scientific fact because we have not found the hundreds of transitional fossils that would be necessary to prove one species changed into another. Evolutionists themselve have admitted this fact.
Evolution: What missing link? - evolution - 27 February 2008 - New Scientist
But for me fossils are boring (sorry palaeontologists).
For me the best and most compelling evidence is watching evolution work in human pathological diseases today. MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusis) a great example of how these bacteria have evolved their defences when faced with a selection pressure (antibiotics) allowing the fittest (those resistant) to survive and thrive.
Seeing as you don’t care about the science here is just a news report rather than a journal paper to prove I didn’t just close my eyes and hope really hard that this was true.
BBC NEWS | Health | Medical notes | J-M | MRSA 'superbugs'
OK please direct me to the place where there is, "insurmountable amount of evidence that prove evolution is highly unlikely." Seriously I want to read it. I will read any links you post, I hope you read mine, I have chosen ones that are written for a general audience and aren’t too ‘sciency.’
I don’t care what you believe or why. However this continual denial of hundreds of years of scientific work and evidence I find, well to be honest, annoying. It’s the same as if I went, “I have never read the ten commandments- therefore they don’t exist!”
This is obviously absurd- I don’t need to believe that the ten commandments are the word of god to accept they exist. You don’t need to believe in evolution to accept that there is a lot of evidence supporting it.
[QUOTE]As long as he acknowleges that it is a belief based on faith in the assuptions then, i am fine with it. I just have a problem with people who try to pawn off theories as facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Yes, there is a possibility that the earth could be billions of years old however i believe it is very unlikely, not because i have an agenda to promote my faith, but for simple fact that i believe the assumptions used in radio dating are not accurate. The assumptions are very far fetched if you will and other scientists share the same opinion.Quote:
What I don't get is this. If you don't think the Bible teaches that the earth is young, why are you so sure that radio-metric dating is wrong when it gives a result of a few billion years? According to your interpretation of the Genesis account, the rocks of the earth's crust and mantle could be that old, couldn't they?
In my opinion there is a lot more evidence for a younger earth.
The bottom line is i just don't take other people's beliefs and opinions at face value especially if feel the is an agenda behind it. The earth was originally aged at 70 million years old by scientists until evolution needed the billions of years so mm.. Why not come up with assumptions that allow for an older earth..
I just don't buy what ever is shoved in my face, i do my own research and analysis. I know enough science to know that "historical science" cannot be known with certainty. I have bachelor's degree in Biology (graduated 3.8gpa)and i have taken a lot of physics and chemistry classes. I am in my first year of Biology masters program right now. So it just makes me laugh when people like Cap make condescending remarks about me being stupid and not knowing science.. oh really?
But we have reasons, good reasons, why the 70 million calculation was wrong, based on new science that was discovered between then and now... It is not only because evolution needed a longer time, but also because we have more evidence to take into account so that we can alter our theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Also, why are you as a masters student in biology "not interested in science"? It would seem a rather foolish position for you to take.
Shame on you for disagreeing….Capuchin disagrees: We know with certainty - we use radiometric dating to estimate the age of the Earth.
Don't you see the contradiction in what you say? We know with certainy…then use radiometric dating to estimate the age of the Earth.
Which is it, is radiometric dating an estimate or a certain date?
It's a measurement with a known certainty - in this case about 1%, so we know that the age of the earth according to all available evidence, with certainty, is between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Like I said before, we can only know things within certain error limits - we cannot know anything with 100% certainty.
“Certainty” is a word I have never heard a scientist use. Science is based on theories, not certainties.
There you go with the contradiction… “It's a measurement with a known certainty - in this case about 1%,…” Is it certain, or “about” 1%?
About, and estimate, are not an indication of certainty.
You're right, we don't talk about certainties. But we do talk all the time about uncertainties. This is about working out how accurate our results are and lets us know what range of values the true value lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
The problems with carbon dating
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net
But in the end, science puts its faith in many principles that may appear true today but may prove untrue 100 years from now.
But in the end, the bible does not "date" anything, ecept for the time Adam left the garden of Eden into the world, From that some idea of dating can be assumed.
The length of time of creation and even more important, the number of years Adam would have lived in the garden, in a state of perfection ( assuming in this perfect state he would not age)
Also we understand that the bible in the old testement is the history of God's relationship with his people, not a complete history of the people, and not complete of all the things in creation. Since it is mans relastionship with his God that was the theme of why we have the bible today.
And of course we understand that many things will try and confuse the Christian, as such we are tempted by many false teachings, and parts of Science is one of them, science temps our morals today with things like clonning, soceity temps us with things like same sex relastionships, and the world temps us with riches and pleasure.
So in the end, those that have placed their faith and salvation into the world will have the world, those that place their faith in God will have God.
And in the world to come when the earth is passed away, the Christian still has God, the others, nothing.
You make a questionable suggestion here : if there has to be corrected on radio dating, we are talking about some percentage points at max, because the general basis is correct (as PROVED by objective supporting evidence).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
However : religious (Bible) claims are based on BELIEF and so far have never been proved by any objective evidence to be correct.
The age of earth is "somewhere" between 4.500.000.000 and 4.600.000.000 years, based on scientific data (supported objective evidence).
Even if this would contain a 10% miscalculation (which it does not) the earth is at least minimal 4.000.000.000 years old, which is about 3.999.994.000 years older than the age as per the creationist claim.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:11 AM. |