Originally posted by KellyJayWho has told you creationism is a valid scientific theory?
Who has told you creationism is a valid scientific theory? Creation is
an event while evolution is supposedly a process that was, is, and will
always be occurring throughout life’s existence. Seeing how again
creation was an event I am not sure any explanation is possible that
would fit what anyone could call a scientific explanation. As far as
similar ...[text shortened]... engthens ID since I do not think TOE can get us where we are today
from old dead dirt.
Kelly
If it is not a valid scientific theory, wouldn´t any discussion of it belong in a Religious Education, not a science class? So science classes should then teach the Theory of Evolution without reference to creation beliefs at all?
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is a valid question, KellyJay, but it is based partially
So tell me, how do you know all your dating methods are correct?
in ignorance.
Ignorance is not an inherently bad thing; we are all ignorant
of most things.
The various forms of dating materials from other radioactive
isotope decay is a well documented and supported science.
What makes theory into fact is the ability to replicate results.
Independent studies by independent labs have found identical
results when studying the various forms of radioactive decay
dating.
You may be interested to read this. It is an article by so-called
Christians who support both radioactive dating and the notion that
the earth is some billions years of old.
http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/RadiometricDatingEvo3.html
I hope that this information will help you to understand the science
of radioactive isotope dating, and to appreciate the certainty with
which scientists use it to date things millions and billions years old.
Enjoy!
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioOh man, I feel the "God just makes radioactive dating work that way to fool us" argument coming on. Just like he put all the dinosaur bones in the Earth to test our faith.
This is a valid question, KellyJay, but it is based partially
in ignorance.
Ignorance is not an inherently bad thing; we are all ignorant
of most things.
The various forms of dating materials from other radioactive
isotope deca ...[text shortened]... date things millions and billions years old.
Enjoy!
Nemesio
The great thing about those arguments is that you can't disprove them. So, Nemesio, one way or another, I think you are sunk.
Kribz
The point about an alternative explanation was a valid one. By the self-imposed limits of science one cannot make it contingeant on a metaphysical premise. Which means you can`t use science to prove a metaphysic or use a metaphysic as a base for science. Theism and atheism, like physicalism and idealism/mentalism, are metaphysical positions.
Originally posted by steerpikeWe do not know how old the earth is using just science, it is beyond
The earth being several billion years old is usually taught as a fact.
What scientific evidence have you got that tells us the real date of the earth?
our abilities. So if you are taught that it is millions or billions of years
old as a fact you are using assumptions that are not know to be
trustworthy and are building on them. To come up with a belief in
evolution because you take a million or billion year old earth as a fact
should show you something! Just to prove my point, exactly how old is
the world? If your date is wrong according to a supposedly new way
of testing, will you change your view on the age of the earth? You may
claim you know how old the earth is using methodology 'X' whatever
your favorite method is, but that is a honest as you can get.
Kelly
Originally posted by nemesioYou can get independent results that are consistent; however, that
This is a valid question, KellyJay, but it is based partially
in ignorance.
Ignorance is not an inherently bad thing; we are all ignorant
of most things.
The various forms of dating materials from other radioactive
isotope decay is a well documented and supported science.
What makes theory into fact is the ability to replicate results.
Indep ...[text shortened]... th
which scientists use it to date things millions and billions years old.
Enjoy!
Nemesio
only proves you can get the same result, not that the result is
accurate. This is not the important part of my complaint against date
methodologies. It is that our results point to things we cannot verify
as factual against a known good date. We can reach the same results,
but do they mean what we think they do? Do we know all the factors
involved? If you are using the word certainty you are applying a lot of
faith in the outcome.
Kelly
Very interesting premise.
Let's see. I really can't see the harm of allowing "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" and "Evolution" from being taught. That is the nature of science. Over time, only the reproducible, verifiable and strongest arguments will gain power.
It may take a thousand years. But -- SO?
Where is it said that we need a time clock -- or an hourglass --, tied to our poor time starved existences in order to investigate the nature of the universe.
I am an optimist. Let everything be said and thought. If we ever try to suppress the banter of ideas and theories, we doom ourselves to their "power of cult" that will arise. Face all ideas. Let them breath. Let those [ideas] which actually generate some credence -- not be worshiped. But used. If an idea produces nothing usable, let it die a natural death.
Mike
oh you people why not stop all this stupid and very pointless argueing. wether you believe in god or not one thing is for sure you will all die and either become nothingness forever more, or your spirit will live on and think why o why did i waste so much of my life on that beautiful planet chatting pointless sh*t to complete strangers over the internet..
Originally posted by deano06I take it you don't use the forums here much ....................
oh you people why not stop all this stupid and very pointless argueing. wether you believe in god or not one thing is for sure you will all die and either become nothingness forever more, or your spirit will live on and think why o why did i waste so much of my life on that beautiful planet chatting pointless sh*t to complete strangers over the internet..
no i dont got better things to do with my life, like scooping up sh*t from my garden.. this is me over and out
remember guys one life( oh silly me opening the door there for you silly people who believe in reincarnation, ah well i aint going to reply anyway. goodnight.)
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, this point of view naturally leads to people believing and doing whatever they want no matter what the evidence is. Science simply proposes models that explain observations. No, it's never proved - but can you prove that you were alive yesterday? No. Can you prove that until two seconds ago you weren't the most flaming gay man on the planet? Nope. Can you prove that you have a nose? Nope.
You can get independent results that are consistent; however, that
only proves you can get the same result, not that the result is
accurate. This is not the important part of my complaint against date
methodologies. It is that our results point to things we cannot verify
as factual against a known good date. We can reach the same results,
but do they m ...[text shortened]... d? If you are using the word certainty you are applying a lot of
faith in the outcome.
Kelly
However, the explanations that you were alive yesterday, that you weren't flaming gay most of your life, and that you have a nose explain your memories and observations really well, so you tend to believe them.