Correct - but pretty acurate at dating something that is, say, 50,000 years old, agreed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
|
Correct - but pretty acurate at dating something that is, say, 50,000 years old, agreed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I haven't heard anyone posit a feasible answer to that question either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
As far as carbon 14, Tom is right that it is used to date materials that are up to about 60,000 years old.
Fortunately, there are other isotopes with much longer half lives that can be used to date older rocks.
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello again, Tj:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I guess I'm the first, then. It's called the big bang. Of course, it's NOT feasible to you. You think the earth is only 6,000 years old. But, it's feasible to lots of people.
Of course, if you want to ask where the singularity that banged came from, I couldn't tell you.
excon
To me "feasible" has a kind of engineering Practicality to it. Feasible (to me) means someone could maybe theoretically do it.
To be honest, the whole question of the origin of matter is totally beyond my imagination. I know there's scientific evidence for the big bang, the expanding universe (red shift), the background radiation, etc, but I can no more imagine everything in the world coming into existence at once than I can imagine millions of species popping into existence on a nice perfectly created planet on a Saturday in May. I know. This is a failure of the imagination, but there it is.
Just my two cents.
Hello asking:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
It's well beyond my imagination too. I can't grasp billions and billion of galaxies. Thinking about how many stars that might be gives me a headache.
But, I don't have to grasp it in order to believe it.
excon
asking, excon:
It's true, imagination cannot grapple with this, largely because what we can imagine is tied in all sorts of ways to our past sensory experiences. We can imagine a unicorn because we've seen horses and we've seen horns. But we've never seen, or perceived by means of any other sensory modality, anything that would give us imaginitive purchase on the singularity that yielded the big bang.
Fortunately, conceivability outruns imaginability. So you can conceive of the big bang, even though your imagination can't put useful images to it. You can't imagine an infinite magnitude, but you can conceive of one. Here's an example: the set of all real numbers. Oh goody! I just conceived of it too!
I more or less agree. But I have spent enough time looking through telescopes to feel comfortable with the idea of so many stars and galaxies. They really are all out there! I feel this is graspable in the same way a beach of individual grains of sand is. I get it, in principle at least. But things like the big bang and relativity have, for me, a kind tenuous, "if you say so, I'll take your word for it" quality for me.
I'm going to assume that if Einstein got it wrong, someone would have figured that out by now, but it's not real to me in the way other things are.
Newtonian mechanics feels totally graspable. Evolution is completely real to me. But things I've never really understood and which don't immediately explain anything I need to know... that's harder.
[[Edit: I was addressing what excon said.]]
I can conceive of the set of all real numbers because it is an abstraction. I cannot conceive of the big bang, except as a superficial illustration in a magazine. To me that is a cheat.
Edit: I should add that I was on a tour at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) a few months ago and they showed us a 3 D movie of the universe forming. It was bizarre and engrossing and beautiful. But I still can't imagine it in the way I mean.
The movie would have had to be in 4 dimensions so that you could see 3-dimensional space expanding, which needless to say is impossible to envision. That's why they use analogies like imagining how the 2-D surface of a balloon expands into 3-D space when you inflate it. It's the only way to "see" how space expands.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Actually, the numbers are reliable or at a much lower number of years. And even then you need to take into account assumptions. Such as the method is only entire accurate for an uncontaminated sample (hard to achieve in nature).Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
So billions? I don't think so.
Then explain to us how the first cell came to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Tj:
I guess I'm the first, then. It's called the big bang. Of course, it's NOT feasible to you. You think the earth is only 6,000 years old. But, it's feasible to lots of people.
This seems like a complete nonsequitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You mean claiming that I said something that I did not say?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
non sequitur - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online DictionaryQuote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Non sequitur.
Sorry about my spelling.
I do somewhat better in my native English.
Eeeeks, now you are scaring me! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I agree with Asking;
Shelesh, could you please clarify what exactly we are talking about here?thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Ho hum - we are really getting a very picky bunch on here aren't we. If only those who are so picky were more precise.
A logic fallacy cannot have been committed based upon a faulty prermise (i.e. a mis-quote). Therefore her conclusion is wrong.
Ex,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Thought I would enlighten you on Christians since you think we are all brainwashed. Not all Christians think the world is 6000 years old. My father is a devout Christian and brilliant in the word of God and he thinks it is billions of years old. I'm not sure myself. What I can't figure out is how you think a so called "big bang" just happened. Is it easier for you to believe that out of chaos perfect order was formed? Please... I ain't got enough FAITH to believe that. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
There are many Christians who believe that the world is billions of years old. I used to be a very strong believer in that myself, so I understand and accept that to be true. I understand why they believe what they do. I was involved in doing exactly what we see others on here doing - trying to refute those who believe in creation and a young earth.
Let me take a few moments to summarize what I went through to bring me to where I am today. Some of the challenges that I was faced with from those who disagreed with me at that time took more research. While I was doing my research to refute these people who, I thought at the time, were so obviously ignoring the evidence, I discovered things that I could no longer ignore, both in scripture and in science.
It took a while, and for a while I fell back to a more comfortable position which I felt covered the problem, and that is theistic evolution. The believe that God used evolution, that the earth really is billions of years old and that Genesis was the story of evolution being described as the stages of creation, explained away by the phrase "a day is as a thousand years with the Lord". But as I tried to defend that position, I found it was the least defensible, and instead of holding to that position for the long period of years that I believed in evolution, my stint in theistic evolution was short.
As a Christian, a man of science, a researcher, and a man of logic, I simply could no longer fool myself into accepting evolution. I made a 180 turnaround into a position that I have now held for as long as I was an evolutionist.
You will find that those who ridicule the YEC (Young Earth Creationists) most often use ridicule as their response. We have seen it on here, ridiculing how anyone could possible be so ignorant. And yet do you see any validation of their position? I asked the evolutionists on many threads, on many boards (including this board) to provide evidence of evolution, and to date nothing.
For Christians, evolution or OEC (Old Earth Creation) is a problem because if the story of Adam and Eve is false, then what happens to the gospel? How did sin enter the world? Why does the New Testament deal explicitly with Adam as a real man, even placing him in the genealogy of Jesus? If Genesis is just a story, where does the story end and history begin - show me the verse.
These are some of the issues that I dealt with from a theological perspective. From a scientific perspective there are some equally big hurdles. I have raised some of the questions on this board and others and so often the same answers come back - ridicule, but never a solid scientific response.
There are many excellent scientists, many of the secular who are quite open about admitting the problems that evolution brings with it. Some other scientists are less open and prefer to not admit the issues but rather staunchly close their eyes and say that it has been proven. If so, where is the proof?
Some people say that we cannot know either way. I disagree with them, but I find that a more honest position than to deny the issues and claim that evolution is a fact. I don't mind people who say that they don't know. If a person will admit that, then they may be able to look at the evidence objectively.
Anyway, sorry for the long-winded story, but it may help those who are interested to know that my background is not that of a YEC, but rather of an evolutionist who was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the evidence which was contrary to what I wanted to believe.
Tj3,
Interesting. The church I go to believes the earth is around 6,000 years old. But there are lots of Godly men who believe the world is billion of years old and they believe the earth was created in literally 6 days. My father is one I guess it is considered the "gap" theory or something. I don't know. I'm not real scientific OR logical.. lol . I tend to go with the earth being relatively young. I went to a Creation museum that Ken Ham was involved with building last March. I found it very interesting. By the way I LOVE hearing about evolutionist who come to their senses!
Well, am still searching for an answer. I don't believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.. The answer is in the Bible and I'll find it..
Yes, I agree that there are many godly persons who hold to an OEC position. I am familiar with the gap theory. I do not find it compelling because it depends upon assuming that scripture left something out.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
I'd like to go there some time. We have a world class research center near us which studies fossils and I have been there a number of times. If you ask questions, I have found that they will be honest and admit where the assumptions are in how they came to their conclusions. In my view, that is a sign of a good scientist - one who can admit and is willing to acknowledge where the line between assumption and fact lies.Quote:
I don't know. I'm not real scientific OR logical.. lol . I tend to go with the earth being relatively young. I went to a Creation museum that Ken Ham was involved with building last March. I found it very interesting. By the way I LOVE hearing about evolutionist who come to their senses!
Yes,
Religious Characteristics of U.S. Physicians
I think belief in God AND science can co-exist.
In this survey 76% of physicians vs 83% in the general population believe in God.
Physicians have a science background and the majority have bachelors in biology or other "hard" science before going to medical school and years of reidency. So no one can claim they are not thinking for themselves and are they are exposed more to evolutionary theory than the general population.
As opposed to bench scientists these professionals deal with science and the human condition daily. And the biggest human condition they see is human suffering.
Despite this, more than 75% of hysicians in this survey believe in God.
The degree that they believe in the Bible was not studied in this study, so I can't comment on that, but the point of this link is that to the OP's ?
A definite YES, science and religion can and do exist.
G&P
These numbers for doctors fit in well with the other numbers I posted earlier, fitting between the average for ordinary scientists and all Americans together, and, in particular, closer to the numbers for average Americans.
The medical schools I'm familiar with do not require medical school applicants to have an undergraduate degree in biology. While many do major in biology, many have majored in history or literature or sometimes chemistry.
In medical school it would be quite unusual for students to be exposed too much in the way of evolution or natural history.
Darwin in medical school - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine
The emphasis is on human anatomy, physiology and pharmacology. If you took a comparative approach to learn these topics in the context of how things work in other animals as well as humans, you would learn a lot about evolution, but the majority of doctors are not exposed to that. They have to memorize what to do if a patient comes in with a certain set of symptoms, how to calculate dosages, and so on. The most important thing is to prevent an imminent death. Everything else can wait.
Most doctors are highly educated technicians and have no reason to think like scientists. It's not what they do day to day and it's not how they were trained. This is not a fault. It's just not what they do.
So it sounds about right that they would be only a bit different from the general population.
I am of course not talking about the few MD/PhDs or MDs involved in quality research programs.
Hi asking.
I've found the numbers you've offered very interesting, but I'm not sure what, if anything, to make of them. Clearly sociological data don't speak to the question whether science and religion are incommensurable frameworks. You've mentioned that, in your experience, many good scientists just don't pay any attention to religion. Do you suspect there is much else going on here? Are you willing to hazard any guesses about what the data may be reflective of? You have suggested that perhaps scientists find their worldview sufficiently satisfying that they aren't looking to supplement it with religion. Do you suspect this is a widespread phenomenon? (I won't hold you to anything you say, since I'm really just asking for guesses based on anecdotal evidence.)
I'm more of a pragmatist than a philosopher, so I'm reluctant to hazard more than guesses about what the data mean.
I will say that I think they mean SOMETHING. They are too dramatic, I think, to be mere coincidence.
But what's cause and what's effect, I don't know.
In brief, I think that either people who are indifferent to religion are disproportionately drawn to science or else the practice of science fills a psychic gap that might, in other circumstances, be filled by religion. I think that whichever it is is more the case with very intelligent people, the sort who end up in the National Academy of Sciences. I guess I lean toward the latter but it could very easily be both. I don't see any reason to choose.
I need to repeat that science and religion clearly are compatible in some good scientists' minds. That's why I posted John Horgan's interview with Francis Collins.
But, that said, I don't think it's coincidental that Collins is a bench scientist with an emphasis on genetics and medicine. A scientist who, further, has devoted himself mostly to management and long range planning for big institutions.
An epidemiologist has to grapple with wild populations. But scientists who work on things that don't vary much, don't always grasp the messiness of real life. Those who work with lab animals or viruses and bacteria in dishes don't get a sense of the sweep of nature. Lab organisms are specifically chosen for rapid reproduction, minimal variation, development that is unaffected by environment, and various other traits that make them easy to work with but which are NOT representative of wild populations of animals, including ourselves.
On top of all that, most genetics experiments deliberately control environmental variation, so traditional geneticists/molecular biologists have come to expect that anything interesting that happens is going to be caused by genes, not the environment. But it is environment that shapes the path of evolution. And that's a whole long other story.
I think that exposure to the enormous variation and the complex interactions that go on in nature predispose people to understand evolution regardless of their education. It doesn't matter if the person encounters nature as a cattle breeder, a hunter, or a field biologist, the effect is significant. Being out in the world allows people to see for themselves that what science says is true. Water does visibly erode mountain ranges, filling rivers with silt and moving beaches. The immense time spans needed to build layers of sandy sediments that are a mile high tell their own tale. Where did all that sand come from? How many winter storms did it take to build the individual grains eroded from older mountains into a towering mountain range like the Rockies?
So I think that although the numbers don't explore it, I would predict that field biologists (and probably field geologists) would be less more likely to think in very long time spans and less likely to believe in God than comparable people in fields that do strictly lab work, such as someone in drug development, an industrial chemist, or an engineer who designs bridges.
These are just tendencies, not absolutes. I would predict lots of exceptions, so some of you, please don't inundate me with examples otherwise. I take those as a given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
If evolution was really pertinent to the care of human beings don't you think that it would be part of medical school curriculum?
In fact, evolution is contrary to medical care. Medical care is about caring for the weak, the sick, the poor, ------- these are the folks that evolution would select out.
As to physicians being just technicians I have to disagree.
For example, your phycsician has to know the presenting evidence from history and physical, come up with a list of potential diagnosis based on probabilty, order tests that would have pertinence, know what to do with the results whether they support or do not support a presumptive diagnosis, and then often times has to choose and tailor fit the best treatment plan.
Your cardiothoracic surgeon not only has to have the technical skill to perform the surgery, but know if surgery is indicated, would the patient survive surgery, would the patient benefit with surgery versus pharmacologic therapy alone, and deal with any postoperative complications. This is not just being a "technician" and should not be placed in the same skill as the technical ability to change a flat tire, for example.
The fact that lab / research scientists do not deal with the human condition on a daily basis, allows them the luxury to theorize. Wat practical use is evolution in daily life?
At least with God, the bible, and religion there is practical advice on the way to live your life.
What would an evolutionists tell a cancer patient? Sorry you inherited or acquired mutations that caused oncogenes and your cancer? Sorry you are in sickle cell crisis and in excruciating pain, but did you know you have an evolutionary advantage against malaria?
NEJM -- Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes
Here is an example of the "research" -- the statistical analysis is enough to cure insomnia.
they deal with numbers, facts, and draw conclusions even they may contradict previously held assumptions.
I would argue that the research and the evidence required for medical research is stricter than that in evolutionary biology or cosmology. You can't do a randomized placebo controlled double blind, reproducible study with evolution.
G&P
Oh, no! Many animals cooperate and take care of their own. It is not at all unusual in social animals and it is certainly not contrary to evolution in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
That's right. Those are technical skills. Some doctors are very good at it Others, not so good. Most of them these days don't remotely have enough time to do a good job on a difficult case. House, after all, is just television. So I disagree.Quote:
As to physicians being just technicians I have to disagree.
For example, your phycsician has to know the presenting evidence from history and physical, come up with a list of potential diagnosis based on probabilty, order tests that would have pertinence, know what to do with the results whether they support or do not support a presumptive diagnosis, and then often times has to choose and tailor fit the best treatment plan.
There are many kinds of technical skills that are far more difficult than changing a flat tire, so that's hardly a fair comparison. I stand by my assertion. I knew that this post would offend some people, but I let Akoue draw me out. :)Quote:
Your cardiothoracic surgeon not only has to have the technical skill to perform the surgery, but know if surgery is indicated, would the patient survive surgery, would the patient benefit with surgery versus pharmacologic therapy alone, and deal with any postoperative complications. This is not just being a "technician" and should not be placed in the same skill as the technical ability to change a flat tire, for example.
[QUOTE]The fact that lab / research scientists do not deal with the human condition on a daily basis, allows them the luxury to theorize.
No. Just the opposite. People who deal with the human condition in situations they cannot control, and people who deal with wild populations -- of deer and fleas and rats and plants -- you name it -- do not just theorize. They are in the trenches of life.
You'd be amazed what you can learn from watching the other kinds of life around you.Quote:
Wat practical use is evolution in daily life?
As for morality and values, I learned those from my parents, like most people, and from other loved ones, from living, from making mistakes, from getting it right, just like most people. Don't ever tell me that you can only learn right and wrong from a book.
There's a place for every kind of technician. If your computer crashes you don't call a doctor and you don't call a biologist. If your car makes a nasty sound and the "check engine" light comes on, you don't call your minister or a cardiac surgeon, no matter how good he is. When you have cancer, you go to the doctor, because they've been taught what to say to you and the pharmaceutical reps have taken them to lunch and given them a list of things that might help you. Or not.Quote:
What would an evolutionists tell a cancer patient? Sorry you inherited or acquired mutations that caused oncogenes and your cancer? Sorry you are in sickle cell crisis and in excruciating pain, but did you know you have an evolutionary advantage against malaria?
I won't argue cosmology, 'cause it's not my field. But for biology, most of the time you'd be wrong. Medical research is often really bad. I've read enough papers with sample sizes consisting of one doctors 7 patients and no controls. That's why they've been trying to make them better. Have you heard of "evidence based" medicine? That they even have to say that is an indication that they didn't used to consider evidence. I saw an ad for a job at a company that does "evidence-based" biomedical research. They think there's another kind??Quote:
I would argue that the research and the evidence required for medical research is stricter than that in evolutionary biology or cosmology.
Actually, you can.Quote:
You can't do a randomized placebo controlled double blind, reproducible study with evolution.
Are you a doctor, by any chance?
If so, let me repeat that I am talking generalities, not about specific people.
"Doctors are not scientists" does not meant "doctors are not good doctors."Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
There is such a thing as medical research that is done scientifically. But dispensing antibiotics to children with earaches and -- even -- cutting open a heart patient is not research. It's treatment.
Would many doctors be better doctors if they understood more biology? Sure. Do they all need it? I seriously doubt it. The doctor at my local clinic who gives out antibiotics or doesn't clearly does not understand what causes antibiotic resistance. If he understood evolution, I'd be able to explain it to him. But with only a 6 minute appointment, there's no way. But I kind of doubt the gap in his knowledge has a huge impact because the rules he's following are set by the clinic and the insurers.
Should medical researchers have a solid foundation in evolutionary biology? Absolutely.
What you are describing here is micro-evolution. As we have discussed before, there is no proof for macro-evolution, and a lot of holes in the theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
House
- yes a TV show, where else do 4- 6 doctors spend days on end taking care of one patient.
How gorilla gestures point to evolution of human language
Is something like this what is considered science?
How exactly do you get from 102 estures in Gorillas to human langauge?
Where is the reproducible study?
How do you draw the conclusion that gorilla gestures and human language are even similar?
Is that the same as saying a bicycle has wheels and a car has wheels so they are the same? Oh wait, I'm using examples of design.
Why don't these scientists use the same train of thought when comparing dolphin sonar and human language? Or human sonar? Oh wait, humans used there intelligence to develop sonar and radar.
G&P
I suspect you're right that there's no very compelling reason to choose. I also think you are right about what the candidates are for an explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that. I hadn't considered this but I'd be very surprised if you aren't right.Quote:
So I think that although the numbers don't explore it, I would predict that field biologists (and probably field geologists) would be less more likely to think in very long time spans and less likely to believe in God than comparable people in fields that do strictly lab work, such as someone in drug development, an industrial chemist, or an engineer who designs bridges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
And how did they come to the conclusion that bypass would be helpful?
ACC/AHA guidelines and indications for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on C
Start at page 47 and see how much research was done to come to some nuanced indications for bypass.
What would the "evolutionist doctor"
Doctor say to the parents of a kid with an ear infection:
Otitis Media: Overview - eMedicine Emergency Medicine
Note the possible cause, bacteria being among the majjor causes with viruses also a consideration.
There is no sure fire way to know the exact cause in an office so:
No antibiotics, the kid gets worse, has damaged hearing, maybe a brain infection or death, if this is an untreated bacterial cause. Or it is a virus and self limited.
Do you risk doing nothing and hope that it is a virus or do you play the percentages and treat? Add into that consideration the medico-legal environment and parental expectations. Also consider that half the times a doctor prescribes an antibiotic it is taken improperly, not taken all the time or long enough, and this contributes to antibiotic resistance [which is not macro -evolution as Tom points out]
Now you provide the proof that further evolutionary studies in medical school in residency would make better doctors?
G&P
eMJA: Spirituality, religion and health: evidence and research directions
Quote:
There is mounting scientific evidence of a positive association between religious involvement and multiple indicators of health. The strongest evidence exists for the association between religious attendance and mortality, with higher levels of attendance predictive of a strong, consistent and often graded reduction in mortality risk.
Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analyt...[Health Psychol. 2000] - PubMed Result
Here is more proof that religion and science do co-exist and are mutually beneficial
G&P
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
So the interesting question here to me is how being intelligent or --at least -- being very good at what you do affects religious experience. Why are only 7% of NAS members believers compared to (what was it?) 30% for scientists generally? Is it just brains? Does science turn people away from God? Is there an interaction between being a scientist AND being a workaholic that drives down the numbers of believers? I don't have a handle on this at all. Are NAS members workaholics? Seems likely. Maybe they just don't have time for two things in their lives. Good male scientists tend to be married, with small families (I have no data, this is just observational). Good women scientists tend not to have children. I alluded to the demanding nature of academic science before. But the pressure isn't all coming from the outside. People like this tend to be driven generally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
This is basically somebody's dissertation topic.
Maybe it is pride?
To believe in ones self or intellect alone leaves no room to consider the Creator.
Use to be doctors thought themselves as god, or so the stereotype went, but over the past several decades that is less true.
When you see how once healthy vibrant people can get sick and die, or just decline to the point of just being shells of their former selves, and despite doing all you can... it is humbling... all the brain power, logic, reason, technology is of little use at that time. That is not to say that basic research and development should not occur... but at that moment, it is kindness, empathy, compassion, patience, listening, and someone just being there or available that helps.
Probably anyone taking care of elderly parents understands this.
--------------------------------------------
I know to literally take the story of Noah's ark, and how he got a pair of every living thing on that ark, REALLY stretches the imagination...
But can you imagine, the Son of God, the Creator of the universe... washing feet?
Which is more believable?
G&P
Millions of us in the world are just fine with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
NK.
Hello again, asking:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
That's the question!
The simple answer is YES. It turns them away, the same way growing up, turns people away from Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.
Indeed, when faced with objective evidence to the contrary, most people give up their childish notions - except when it comes to religion.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 AM. |