05 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MattPYou want to tell my using your logic and scientific method what happen
Creationism is anti-science because it does not use a logical scientific method.
There is no scientific evidence at all to support creationist ideas.
Talk about "missing links", or about "things that are too complicated to have evolved without some kind of intelligent helper" are profoundly un-scientific. This is because they ignore any evidence which ionism methods and thinking that are profoundly irrational that makes it anti-science.
before the universe began? Give me you logic, show me your proofs,
tell me about how all things came from nothing, or whatever it is you have
for evidence for, bring it forward so we can discuss it, or be lumped with
the flat earthers yourself.
kelly
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
I don't completely trust what I cannot know for certain is true, there
are always going to be a level of doubt. Even if I accepted the notion
that the radiological dates were true; the doubt would still be there,
because there isn't anyone who can confirm by observation it is true
when we are looking at dates that old. I submit you too should not
blind ...[text shortened]... old is true or not, if I cannot confirm I have to take what I’m
being told on faith.
Kelly
They have confirmed that the constants of nature involved in radioactive decay have not changed with time.
This has been observed here and now, by looking at light that has taken millions of years to arrive at our planet.
So I ask you again, what specific aspect of radiological dating could have changed with time that has not been accounted for?
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou did say this though Kelly:
Have you ever seem me tell you, creation is science?
I have not ever put that forward, if you want make that your point
I agree with you. Creation is a matter of faith you cannot test for it.
Kelly
"You call creationist anti-science, because they do not accept the same
things you do, that does not make them anti-science just some of the
things some people in science believe.
Kelly"
and this was the point to which I was responding.
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
You want to tell my using your logic and scientific method what happen
before the universe began? Give me you logic, show me your proofs,
tell me about how all things came from nothing, or whatever it is you have
for evidence for, bring it forward so we can discuss it, or be lumped with
the flat earthers yourself.
kelly
I, nor any scientist, claims to know how the universe began, what was before it or even if there was a "before" period. I have never claimed to know this information, or to have any testable theories on the matter.
If you understood science you would know that the current research is on observing the universe closer and closer to it's beginning. At the moment we can draw some conclusions for the time a few seconds after the big bang I think - but this is not an area I know too much about. HOWEVER, it is never claimed to know how the universe began!
Also, your post was an example of the rubbish logic I mentioned in my previous posts.
Just because we have no evidence on which to draw conclusions does NOT mean that it must be god! As you correctly pointed out, we have no way to observe how the universe began, so all we can say about it is "we don't know". To postulate that it was created by a god (which creationists do) is very illogical and there is not evidence for this.
HOWEVER, just because science cannot explain the beginning of the universe does not mean that religion can.
Do you understand my point about negative proof? You cannot say "this theory is wrong, so mine is right". You cannot say "this theory doesn't explain the start of the universe so mine is right". You must prove your own theory to be true, diss-proving a theory does not prove an alternative theory!
05 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…Even if I accepted the notion that the radiological dates were true; the doubt would still be there, because there isn't anyone who can confirm by observation it is true when we are looking at dates that old…
I don't completely trust what I cannot know for certain is true, there
are always going to be a level of doubt. Even if I accepted the notion
that the radiological dates were true; the doubt would still be there,
because there isn't anyone who can confirm by observation it is true
when we are looking at dates that old. I submit you too should not
blind old is true or not, if I cannot confirm I have to take what I’m
being told on faith.
Kelly
Wrong. Real science is based on observation and, not surprisingly, radiological dating is confirmed by observation because radiological dating is just such a real science.
Layers in sedimentary rock can be found and observed to consist of annual layers like those in the cross-section of a tree trunk. They often consist of light and dark bands due to seasonal effects such as plankton booming or pollen etc (depending on where the sediments are being layed down) in summer causing the sediment layed down to have a dark colour and the lack of such plankton or pollen etc in winter causing the sediment layed down to have a lighter colour. The existence of the plankton/pollen etc can be confirmed by looking for their microfossils in the rock layers using powerful microscopes . Thus each ‘light-dark’ pair of layers represents one year. We can count the number of layers in a sedimentary rock-face and sometimes count much more than 100,000 layers which by itself would confirm that the Earth must be at least that old.
But although the number of annual layers in some sedimentary rock faces is good evidence just by itself that the Earth must be very old, it is doubly confirmed by radiological dating for when each one of those layers is dated, not by counting the layers above or below it but by radiological dating, the radiological dating confirms which layers are younger and which layers are older. In addition, if we know that annual layer X is, say, 10,000 years older than annual layer Y because to go from annual layer X to annual layer Y we have to count 10,000 annual layers in between them, and if we then radiological date layer X and Y, we can observe that according to the radiological dating that layer X is indeed 10,000 years older than annual layer Y with only a little margin for error! In this way, we CAN confirm by observation that radiological dating works and is reasonably accurate.
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by MattPYou do not know how old the light is that is getting here.
Kelly,
They have confirmed that the constants of nature involved in radioactive decay have not changed with time.
This has been observed here and now, by looking at light that has taken millions of years to arrive at our planet.
So I ask you again, what specific aspect of radiological dating could have changed with time that has not been accounted for?
I also told you, that the reason I do not just buy into the radiological
dating is the when you start saying millions/billions of years you have
moved beyond the ability of man to confirm, there isn't a way to know
for sure it is true. That is true with all dating methods that push those
times.
Kelly
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by MattPYour point was what, because creationist don't agree with some of the
You did say this though Kelly:
"You call creationist anti-science, because they do not accept the same
things you do, that does not make them anti-science just some of the
things some people in science believe.
Kelly"
and this was the point to which I was responding.
foundamental things you believe are true, they are against science?
I beg to differ, the only thing I'd say there were against is some of
you foundational views that get you to some of the conclusions you
have reached.
Kelly
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by MattPAll the evidence is there, how you look at it differs from one person
Kelly,
I, nor any scientist, claims to know how the universe began, what was before it or even if there was a "before" period. I have never claimed to know this information, or to have any testable theories on the matter.
If you understood science you would know that the current research is on observing the universe closer and closer to it's beginning. ...[text shortened]... ur own theory to be true, diss-proving a theory does not prove an alternative theory!
to the next. The fact you cannot, or even care to look at the whole
picture to see if the little part of the puzzle that you think you do
understands works, is amazing to me. You avoid the beginning of
the process and like looking at the end, and you belittle those that
do look to the beginning as part of the whole process. I also disagree
with you on it is not claimed that people know how it began, more
than a few here promote the Big Bang, but refuse to say what was
going on before that.
I never said God is a must, in this thread, I said I lean in that direction
because it makes more sense to me. Avoiding God just because He
fills in some blanks you have only means that there is something
there you don't want to see in my opinion, evidence. It isn't something
I can prove, but it does fill in the blanks, yes.
I have not given you a theory to accept, if creation is a theory it would
be science would it not? I have maintained that creation is a matter of
faith, you accept it or reject it.
I also agree with you, just because you disprove one thing does not
automatically mean a rival theory is true.
Kelly
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI'll come back to this one.
but you feel it is impossible for you to be
wrong about the range, you know there is nothing missing, no mistake
that no one is aware of yet that could cause us to be wrong about the
range, the range is without a doubt NOT possibly wrong, it is dead on
right no way no how, can we be wrong about that!?
You accuse me of misinterpreting what y ...[text shortened]... why don't you actually answer my questions. Will you do that?
Quid pro quo.
Kelly
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Wrong. Real science is based on observation and, not surprisingly, radiological dating is confirmed by observation because radiological dating is just such a real science. "
[b]…Even if I accepted the notion that the radiological dates were true; the doubt would still be there, because there isn't anyone who can confirm by observation it is true when we are looking at dates that old…
Wrong. Real science is based on observation and, not surprisingly, radiological dating is confirmed by observation because radiologi ...[text shortened]... s way, we CAN confirm by observation that radiological dating works and is reasonably accurate.[/b]
You have observed a million years or billion years of decay, just
checking?
Kelly
05 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally by KellyJayI ask you again, KellyJay, what is your view of how old Earth is?
... silence ...
If you have no opinion about it, please, state so. Else I easily are led into the conclusion that you don't have a clue. Perhaps even that you don't give a fack...
05 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayNow that is a silly question. Obviously I have not personally observed million years of decay just as I haven’t personally observed 100 years of decay. But obviously that is totally irrelevant to the fact and does nothing to change the fact that scientists have made observations that logically leads them to the inescapable conclusion that million years of decay have taken place -this is just an example of “indirect observation” .
"Wrong. Real science is based on observation and, not surprisingly, radiological dating is confirmed by observation because radiological dating is just such a real science. "
You have observed a million years or billion years of decay, just
checking?
Kelly
If you want an example of a set of these observations then read my last post again as I was at great pains to fully explain just such a set of observations that lead to the inescapable conclusion that million years of decay have taken place -please explain to me how that isn’t so.
Are you questioning the validity of “indirect observations” in science? If so, then if you lived back in the time before man-made space satellites that can take pictures of the round Earth but when finally scientist came to the inescapable concluded from various observations that the Earth must be round and not flat, then if there was a layman back then who claimed the Earth is round as a result of knowing scientists have come to such an inescapable concluded from their observations, would you have criticise such a claim from that layman by asking him: “You have observed the Earth is round, just checking?”
If indirect observations are invalid then quantum mechanics is invalid because know body has ever directly seen an atom or a photon etc -which means if indirect observations are invalid then the transistors in microchips shouldn’t work and modern computers should never work.
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonDon't you see a pattern emerging here? K will NEVER just give you an unambiguous answer, that should be abundantly clear by now.
Now that is a silly question. Obviously I have not personally observed million years of decay just as I haven’t personally observed 100 years of decay. But obviously that is totally irrelevant to the fact and does nothing to change the fact that scientists have made observations that logically leads them to the inescapable conclusion that million yea ...[text shortened]... nvalid then the transistors in microchips shouldn’t work and modern computers should never work.
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNot to mention the fact that, correct me if I'm wrong, but we only know the earth rotates around the sun because of indirect observation.
If indirect observations are invalid then quantum mechanics is invalid because know body has ever directly seen an atom or a photon etc -which means if indirect observations are invalid then the transistors in microchips shouldn’t work and modern computers should never work.
From our perspective, we can't see that we are going around the sun and not the other way around (at least from looking at the sun only).
We know we revolve around the sun because it makes the orbits we see of other planets make sense given our understanding of gravity.
There's a video on Youtube (I wish I could post it now, but I don't have it where I am) showing how the orbits would look if ptolemy was right and it just doesn't make sense - the planets are just going in very irregular paths. When we consider the earth to be revolving around the sun and the other planets also revolving around the sun then the solar system looks regular and fits right in with how gravity works.