22 Mar 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaObviously, I believe my view is the correct one on this issue and believe the scientific evidence is building on the side of theism as does former long time atheist philospher Antony Flew and former atheist, turned Christian, C.S. Lewis did before him.
Do you believe there is some clearly defined, a priori critical mass threshold of evidence in favor of a different opinion that if presented to you then could convince you fundamentally to revise your opinions?
There's no objectively right or wrong answer to this question, by the way. If "no," then the atheists in this thread have their answer a ...[text shortened]... all can have fun continuing the conversation, and possibly even in a non-confrontational manner.
22 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThat doesn't answer my question. I would presume indeed that as you are a rational being, in a general sense, you would believe that the opinion you hold is correct. What I'm asking is, do you have any room for reasonable doubt? As in, can you imagine the existence of a hypothetical-but-not-impossible scenario in which you could be convinced that your opinion is actually incorrect?
Obviously, I believe my view is the correct one on this issue...
22 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaIt might be possible, but I am 70 years old yesterday and have spent much time studying the issue and can't imagine what new information could change my mind at this point other than the age of the matter that makes up the universe. I just see a mountain of problems with the idea of a universe like ours with all the integrated complexity that comes along with the introduction of the life forms as we know them without the imput of a enormously superior intelligent mind greater than man's to design and program them to conform to the laws of the universe.
That doesn't answer my question. I would presume indeed that as you are a rational being, in a general sense, you would believe that the opinion you hold is correct. What I'm asking is, do you have any room for reasonable doubt? As in, can you imagine the existence of a hypothetical-but-not-impossible scenario in which you could be convinced that your opinion is actually incorrect?
22 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThere are many ways that modern scientists believe they can demonstrate the old age of the earth and of the universe:
What facts prove an old earth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
But hear me on this: if you don't accept these scientific methods as valid, then I won't fight you on your position, as long as you recognize the consequences of that position, that is, that the scientific methods employed in those fields are the same ones used in modern medicine, conventional "every-day" physics, even meteorology, and a vast host of other fields.
22 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkaI have told him many times the scientific method that works for physics, chemistry, atmospheric science, geology and so forth are exactly the same as those used for evolution and age of the Earth. He can't get it through his somewhat limited head they produce results because the scientific method works no matter what the discipline.
There are many ways that modern scientists believe they can demonstrate the old age of the earth and of the universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
But hear me on this: if you don't accept these scientific [b]methods as valid, then I won't fight you on your position, as lon ...[text shortened]... dicine, conventional "every-day" physics, even meteorology, and a vast host of other fields.[/b]
For him, the stupid bible tales trump science every time there is a disagreement between what the bible tales say and what science says, it doesn't matter how many experiments have been performed, in his mind they are all criminals to even SUGGEST the bible fantasy tales are fake and these criminal scientists are involved in a massive multi-disciplinarian conspiracy to put down the bible fairy tales and co-incidentally to kill Christianity.
23 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkaI certainly accept the scientific method. However, scientists must make assumptions in doing their radiometric dating calculations.
There are many ways that modern scientists believe they can demonstrate the old age of the earth and of the universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
But hear me on this: if you don't accept these scientific [b]methods as valid, then I won't fight you on your position, as lon ...[text shortened]... dicine, conventional "every-day" physics, even meteorology, and a vast host of other fields.[/b]
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm
Radioactive Dating - ASSUMPTIONS
23 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI've taken a stab at addressing this video's criticism of three assumptions in radiometric dating. I quote the Wikipedia article I mentioned in my previous post--an article which, I will add, in turn cites many other well-established scientific articles for support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYvUSro7YUM
___
How does someone know the decay rate has remained constant since the rock formed?
"For most radioactive nuclides, the half-life depends solely on nuclear properties and is essentially a constant. It is not affected by external factors such as temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field."
Sure, there is an assumption implied here. Tomorrow, scientists may discover that the true half life of, say, uranium, is a fraction of the magnitude they had previously thought it to be. But if scientists have measured the half life to be constant under a wide range of conditions, it's a very reasonable scientific inference to assume that the half life is constant over time.
Here's an analogy. You take an aspirin tomorrow (call it day 1), and we take samples of your blood every 5 minutes after you take the aspirin, to see how quickly you body metabolizes the drug. Then, we repeat this procedure on you for days 2-14. Let's say that we find that for all days in our trial, the rate at which your body metabolizes the aspirin is constant. It's then a very reasonable scientific inference to assume that the rate at which your body would have metabolized the aspirin on day 0 is equal to the average rate at which it metabolized the aspirin during our trial.
(Two preemptive notes... First, this isn't a trivial example. This assumption is one we make often, and it is one that has important consequences, because if the rate at which we metabolized the drug differed from day to day, then we could potentially overdose and cause harm to ourselves. Second, don't get caught up in how the scale of time in my anaolgy does not map onto that for radiometric dating: half lives of radioactive materials are generally measured in years, while half lives of drugs are generally measured in days.)
How do we know the amounts of parent or daughter elements haven't been altered by other processes in the past?
"It is...essential to have as much information as possible about the material being dated and to check for possible signs of alteration. Precision is enhanced if measurements are taken on multiple samples from different locations of the rock body. Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample...they should form an isochron. This can reduce the problem of contamination. In uranium-lead dating, the concordia diagram is used which also decreases the problem of nuclide loss. Finally, correlation between different isotopic dating methods may be required to confirm the age of a sample."
These standards to maintain precision seem pretty rigorous to me.
Yes, scientists are ultimately making an assumption here. But, again, is it really an assumption of which scientists in other fields have not made similar kinds? How do we know that an environmentalist who goes out and collects a sample of water from the Great Lakes didn't pour his own pollutants into the sample before running analyses on it, as opposed to finding pollutants that were actually in the original sample? How do we know that a biologist who goes around swabbing door handles didn't sneeze all over his sample before running analyses on it, as opposed to finding bacteria that were actually in the original sample? We can't know for sure, but we can and do take steps to maintain precision in those fields, too, just as geologists do (as described above).
How do we know what the initial conditions were in the rock sample?
I'm actually not 100% sure what this question means by "conditions."
I am guessing that the question is really asking, "How do we know that at time t=0, there were no daughter atoms present?"
"If a material that selectively rejects the daughter nuclide is heated, any daughter nuclides that have been accumulated over time will be lost through diffusion, setting the isotopic 'clock' to zero. The temperature at which this happens is known as the closure temperature or blocking temperature and is specific to a particular material and isotopic system. These temperatures are experimentally determined in the lab by artificially resetting sample minerals using a high-temperature furnace. As the mineral cools, the crystal structure begins to form and diffusion of isotopes is less easy. At a certain temperature, the crystal structure has formed sufficiently to prevent diffusion of isotopes. This temperature is what is known as closure temperature and represents the temperature below which the mineral is a closed system to isotopes. Thus an igneous or metamorphic rock or melt, which is slowly cooling, does not begin to exhibit measurable radioactive decay until it cools below the closure temperature. The age that can be calculated by radiometric dating is thus the time at which the rock or mineral cooled to closure temperature. Dating of different minerals and/or isotope systems (with differing closure temperatures) within the same rock can therefore enable the tracking of the thermal history of the rock in question with time, and thus the history of metamorphic events may become known in detail."
In other words, a geologist goes out and takes a rock sample, and measures the the ratio of daughter atoms to parent atoms to be some value X. He then takes a sample of the sample, heats is to a very high temperature, and then lets it cool back down. Next, he measures the ratio of daughter atoms to parent atoms in the sample of the sample to be effectively zero, so he concludes that until the sample of the sample cooled below a certain point, the material could selectively reject the daughter atoms through diffusion. Thus, at a certain point, the original rock from which the original sample came must have cooled below a certain point, or else it would have no daughter atoms, because it would have still been able to reject the daughter atoms through diffusion.
Thus, the only room for error, as far as I can see, would be in the precision and validity of the tests performed on the sample. But as I mentioned above, each scientific field has well-established standards to preserve the integrity of their research, as is required by close adherence to the scientific method.
___
With all of this said, I will admit again that yes, geologists make assumptions in the course of their research. My challenge to you, now, is to demonstrate how those assumptions are substantively different in form from those made by scientists in other fields, in a way that justifies your ability to claim that you "certainly accept the scientific method" as it applies to those fields while you do not accept its application to the field of geology.
23 Mar 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaYou seem to have a general idea of the problem with making assumptions. However, the main problem when we ASSUME is that it makes an ASS out of U and ME.
I've taken a stab at addressing this video's criticism of three assumptions in radiometric dating. I quote the Wikipedia article I mentioned in my previous post--an article which, I will add, in turn cites many other well-established scientific articles for support.
___
[quote]How does someone know the decay rate has remained constant since the rock ...[text shortened]... " as it applies to those fields while you do not accept its application to the field of geology.
23 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsSo do scientists in every field. It's the nature of inference.
However, scientists must make assumptions in doing their radiometric dating calculations.
For example, think about the scientific process involved in determining that a potential medicine is safe. This is usually done by way of a clinical trial, which is full of assumptions.
Ultimately, the medical scientists are making the assumption that a medicine that is safe for a small sample of patients in the clinical trial will likewise be safe for all those who take it in the general population. This general assumption is built on even more assumptions. For example, the researchers assume that by dividing the patient sample into two groups, and giving one group the medication and one group the placebo, the act of randomizing who receives which treatment will effectively account for all the variability the researchers might find in the outcomes. The researchers may have to assume that the patients in the sample actually took their medication as reported, instead of stopping half-way through the study, or instead of faking having swallowed the medicine. The researchers assume that the physicians had no bias in deciding which patients received the medication and which received the placebo. Etc.
23 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsMy issue with your position is what I perceive as an inconsistency in your skepticism about "making assumptions."
You seem to have a general idea of the problem with making assumptions.
Do you take any medications? If so, why? The decision as to whether those medications were safe or not came from scientific inferences based on assumptions.
Edit: As I stated in an earlier post: My challenge to you, now, is to demonstrate how those assumptions [in geology] are substantively different in form from those made by scientists in other fields, in a way that justifies your ability to claim that you "certainly accept the scientific method" as it applies to those fields while you do not accept its application to the field of geology.
23 Mar 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaYes, and people die and lawsuits are filed and settlements are made too.
So do scientists in every field. It's the nature of inference.
For example, think about the scientific process involved in determining that a potential medicine is safe. This is usually done by way of a clinical trial, which is full of assumptions.
Ultimately, the medical scientists are making the assumption that a medicine that is safe for a small ...[text shortened]... no bias in deciding which patients received the medication and which received the placebo. Etc.
But seriously, it is riciculous to claim a rock is 2,321,744,695 years old based on some hypothetical belief that an age can be determined by a calculation method that gets different ages when another radioactive material is used or when another dating method is used when there is no true scientific method to determine if this age is any better than a wild guess.
Lava rocks that have been created from volcanos that erupted at a known date have been dated to billions of years. Also I have read of reports of different parts of the same wooly mammoth having been dated with ages that were millions of years apart. Obviously, radiometic dating is suspect.
23 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThe issue of perceived good drugs turning out to be bad drugs is one of basic statistics. Again, because it's infeasible to test whether the drug in question is safe for every single person in the world, scientists make the assumption that based on a small sample of patients, they can be confident in their conclusions, given their a priori assumptions, only in proportion to the number of people they have in their sample.
Yes, and people die and lawsuits are filed and settlements are made too.
But seriously, it is riciculous to claim a rock is 2,321,744,695 years old based on some hypothetical belief that an age can be determined by a calculation method that gets different ages when another radioactive material is used or when another dating method is used when there is no ...[text shortened]... een dated with ages that were millions of years apart. Obviously, radiometic dating is suspect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
What's funny is that, when scientists go on to claim that a given drug they had thought was safe is actually dangerous, that new claim is also based on assumptions! This is because those scientists have only revised their claims on the basis of a new patient sample, but there are still people out there whom they never get to test, so they still can't know for sure whether the drug is more or less safe--they're still assuming that on the basis of the new evidence, the drug shouldn't be regarded as safe for the general population.
So I restate my point: If you reject the scientific method anywhere, you reject it everywhere. So you would thus have no more reason to believe that the scientists were correct in belatedly claiming a drug was dangerous than you would have to believe that they were wrong in the first place.