 |
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...
.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:00 PM. |