Science Becoming a Religion

Empirical science and religion differ in some fundamental ways. Scientists look for questions to ask. Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.

Science has theories that are subject to change. In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. A year latter J.J. Thomson overturned this theory by reporting his discovery that atoms were actually comprised of smaller charged particles he called "protons", "electrons" and "neutrons". Later research demonstrated that Thomson's particles were comprised of even smaller particles.

Religion has truths that are to be accepted without question. Those who question these truths may be treated as heretics.

Real scientists encourage questions. They even ask questions about established theories including aspects of the Theory of Relativity and try to find ways these theories might be wrong. Stephan Hawking demonstrated what a real scientist does when he suggested he had been wrong when he suggested that information cannot escape from a black hole. Physicists have a model of the atom they are satisfied with, but that hasn’t stopped them from checking to see if they might have missed something. They are currently colliding heavy nuclei to test the model.

Relgion gets its truths from prophets or dieties. Science has to do things the hard way by conducting repeated observations and experiments. Science cannot verify theories about physical processes that cannot be examined.

Some people who call themselves scientists want science to become a substitute for religion, or at least function more like a religion.. Some believe that science can provide an explanation for events in the distant past that is so accurate it cannot be questioned. Such a claim is illogical because insufficient information is available. For example, those who talk about greenhouse gases state they can precisely determine past temperatures by examining tree rings or ice cores. The width of tree rings depends upon availability of water and the amount of time temperatures are within the range the tree can grow in, not average temperatures. The religious fanatics of the greenhouse gas religion have been accused of practicing censorship of those who disagree with their doctrine.

The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth has traditionally been the province of religion. Science can only deal effectively with the present. It cannot observe or manipulate the distant past to verify theories. The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth is interesting and scientific studies of the present might provide useful information, but science cannot provide a definitive answer to the question of how the universe or biological life came to exist. Science can only say what might have happened.

Demolished- lol, yes, you’ve managed to point out a few errors, and no doubt feel like captain invincible because of those few, but you’ve ignored the vast majority of counter evidneces because quite frankly you couldn’t ‘demolish’ the facts they stated. Nope- not ignoring the few posts Coyote- See the thing is, Creationists/ID’ists/YEC’ers will own up to the few mistakes they make because quite frankly, the few mistakes pale in comparrison to the overwhelming evidneces that are factual.- but if it makes you feel any better, I’ll award you a cookie for discovering one mistake on that site full of factual evidences and grant you a ‘Whoopidie Doo’ and a ‘Yawn’ as well, wich should go nicely with the cookie award and a tall glass of prebiotic muck- but do take rolaids immediately after consuming as the muck tends to cause gas.

Laugh it up.

You seem to place a great reliance on creationist websites. I have some expertise in radiocarbon dating, and I am gradually researching and demolishing creationist's lies in that field. One at a time. I do have other things to do, you know.

I've "pointed out a few errors?" Yes, I have. And those errors are still on the creationist websites, where they can delude those who don't know any better. (Do you recommend that I email those websites and ask them to correct their misstatements? Do you think they would do so? Maybe if you emailed them, as a creationist, and pointed out their errors they would remove them. What do you think?)

It may take me a while, but I'll catch all of those errors in this field eventually--one at a time. Then where will you be?

Oh, right. Right back where you are now, because for you it is not a matter of science (facts, evidence, logic, reason, etc.). For you it is a matter of religious belief -- you just use science where you think you can fool somebody who may not know the real story.

Well, in radiocarbon dating, I happen to know a bit of science and I can spot the creationist's errors and lies. You can look forward to seeing one after another of the favorite creationist's claims debunked here, and perhaps elsewhere. (I will leave it to other experts to debunk creationist's claims in other fields.)

I’ve seen that site before and investigated it further and No I’m sorry- He’s not ‘debunked’ His work and findings are commonly admitted by scientists- Your site is really nothign more than a bitter old man playing symantics games- His arguments are deceitful and attribute sentiments to Woodmorappe’s findings that Woodmorappe never intended- the very first link in your site proves htis out splendidly and exposes the petty argumentative nature of those who can’t stomach folks who investigate matters more fully and find that there are indeed problems that are being systematically hidden from the public- Henke’s petty arguments can be reffuted point by point- but really, what good will it do? Just a waste of time because people like Heneke and those who beleive him could care less that they are being less than honest and will roll on like a runaway locomotive with no cares in the world other than maligning those htey dissagree with with nothign but fluff arguments- Henke takes a few fairly benign points made by Woodmorappe and pretends Woodmorappe is trying to rely solely on points that aren’t actually of much relevence to his argument and FACTs as a whole- Henke totally ignores the more relevent points because they would undermine his petty nit-picking arguments- but nice try. Woodmorappe’s work stands on it’s own merrits and anyone can try to malign anyone simply by nit-picking and assigning sentiments that were never intentioned by the author of the work they are brow-beating. This tactic works well in forums where people don’t care about the facts, and don’t care that the one maligning is being deceitful- but as mentioned, the work of folks like morappe stand up in more intellectual and honest situations and that’s all that matters.

And the fruitfly experiments have been going on for nearly a century trying to produce higher speices through mutations- read more about it here: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

[ (Do you recommend that I email those websites and ask them to correct their misstatements? Do you think they would do so? Maybe if you emailed them, as a creationist, and pointed out their errors they would remove them. What do you think?)]

Ya know- I’d have actually concidered doing just that if you asked HAD you not decided a long time ago to respond to my posts with nothing but contempt aNd pettiness- I had acvtually requested you do so in a thread, and it became apparent you had no intention of changing.

I’m all for being accurate as possible, and do agree with you that the few mistakes a site has should be cleared up- but folks like you spend your free time looking for the few mistakes, while ignoring the bulk of facts that you don’t agree with, and you use those few mistakes to try to malign and berate the whole site and authors based on nothign but a few mistakes. Apparently mistakes aren’t allowed when it comes to sites that don’t march to the tune of evolution- but mistakes, half-truths, outright deceits and blatant lies are perfectly acceptable in your mind when the sites support evo.

(Do you suppose talkorigins will retract al lthe mistakes, half-truths, and outright lies if maybe you called them on their deceits and asked them to? Maybe if you emailed them, as an evo, and pointed out their errors they would remove them. What do you think?)

[You can look forward to seeing one after another of the favorite creationist’s claims debunked here, and perhaps elsewhere.]

And you can look forward to my posting the facts IF you don’t do so with intellectual honesty. As well you can look forward to me pointing out that you repeatedly try to make mountains out of molehills in an attempt to change the focus away from the bulk of factual evidences on sites that refute evo points.

>>The last link and article I referred to wasn’t really talking about errors (unless you concider younge dates than millions of years to be errors), but rather with many early dates given. But for the errors, Woodmorappe’s book and online work point ot many many errors in radiometric dating, and highlights the assumptions that are used in order to get ‘correct’ dates that agree.<<

Fortunatley the underlying science is staggeringly reliable - humans have tried every kind of chemical reaction, temperature and pressure variation in order to get it to speed up or slow down and have never been successful.

No doubt there are human generated errors but hundreds of thousands of tests done in thousands of labs show the earth is billions of years old, that dinosaurs lived until 65+- million years ago and so on. The dates from different elements match up and animals dated from different periods never show up in the same radiometric time.

Its just really an incredible tool. And even high school kids can do the basic work so anyone can test it for themselves.

I can see the need to discredit it if one wanted to claim the earth was only thousands of years old but but I really don’t get why one would want to claim something that is obviously not true.

If radiocarbon dating was affected by an increase in free carbon during or after the flood, the increased CO₂ resulting from that event would be evident in ice cores as CO₂, in varves as carbon, in living trees as CO₂ fertilization effect, and as subsumed CO₂ in limestone and sandstones situated under low-permeability cap rocks (Geologic reservoirs). We should also see spikes in CO₂ corresponding to earthquake releases from those reservoirs. The more recent the CO₂ increase, say ~4500 years ago, the more common and larger those sinks should be.

What these Flood proponents need to understand is that their explanations not only have to fit within the limits of the laws of physics but need to account for all the evidence, not just some cherry picked point.

...you can look forward to me pointing out that you repeatedly try to make mountains out of molehills in an attempt to change the focus away from the bulk of factual evidences on sites that refute evo points.

I have expertise in only certain areas, and that is where I tend to post.

If I can point out the mistakes and deliberate distortions in creationist websites within my field of study, then that is a contribution that I can make. Other posters will have to deal with other fields of study.

But how many mistakes and deliberate distortions that I find in the creationist websites will it take before you to stop relying on them? One? Two? Ten? A million? I think that you will believe those websites no matter how many mistakes I point out. The reason for this is that I don't believe you are doing science. I believe you are just lifting arguments from creationist websites trusting that they are correct, but that you don't know whether their science is any good or not. Because you are operating from faith, not science, no matter how many of their arguments I show to be incorrect it won't make any difference to you.

But that's OK. I will take the creationist claims in my fields and demolish them one by one. Other posters will probably do the same in their own fields of study.

It won't bother you in the least to see those creationist websites demolished point by point, but the lurkers will see the arguments on both sides and make up their own minds.

Of course!

My favorite is packing all of the radioactive decay in just 6,000 years. That's a laugh! Can you say, parboiled earth, boys and girls? (I knew you could.)

For the lurkers, the amount of energy that has been released by radioactive decay can be determined by the isotopes that are present. Science suggests that that decay has been spread over about 4.5 billion years. To pack that amount of radioactive decay, and that amount of generated heat, into 6,000 years causes major unanticipated problems, like parboiling the earth.

And that is just one of the problems creationists end up with when they try to dabble in science with their cherry picked points.

"Hahahaha- yup- one can use the very same error prone dating methods to ‘cross check’ the error prone dendrology- it’s like using a broken calculator with a broken number 4 on it to check anopther calculator with a broken number 4 and trying to add 2+2. Yup- use a system that is based on ASSUMPTIONS to check a system that relies on ASSUMPTIONS- to verify it’s accuracy lol"

If the Flood_(TM) injected enough carbon into the atmosphere to invalidate radiocarbon dating beyond that point there would be evidence for that increase in a great many carbon sinks and CO2 reservoirs. The evidence for such an increase in carbon IS NOT THERE.

If you want to postulate that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate because of the flood you have to account for the existing record of carbon and CO2, not just in Dendrochronology, but in varves, which can be counted, several kilometres of ice cores, geologic reservoirs and corals.

[I can see the need to discredit it if one wanted to claim the earth was only thousands of years old but but I really don’t get why one would want to claim something that is obviously not true.]

It’s more than that- You say the evidence for radiometric accuracy is staggering- I say it’s built on assumptions about the past, on uncertainties etc. You feel there is enough to beleive that- many don’t- We see even secular scinetists confessing to the problems of radiometric dating, and regularly pointing out hte problems- You and I will have to dissagree about the accuracy as both of us have enough evidences to come to a strong conclusion either way about something that really can’t be known for sure.

[If radiocarbon dating was affected by an increase in free carbon during or after the flood, the increased CO2 resulting from that event would be evident in ice cores as CO2, in varves as carbon, in living trees as CO2 fertilization effect, and as subsumed CO2 in limestone and sandstones situated under low-permeability cap rocks (Geologic reservoirs). We should also see spikes in CO2 corresponding to earthquake releases from those reservoirs. The more recent the CO2 increase, say ~4500 years ago, the more common and larger those sinks should be.
What these Flood proponents need to understand is that their explanations not only have to fit within the limits of the laws of physics but need to account for all the evidence, not just some cherry picked point.]

I think if you investigate enough that you will find evidences- but I’m sure there will be soem kind of explaining it away.

[If I can point out the mistakes and deliberate distortions in creationist websites within my field of study, then that is a contribution that I can make. Other posters will have to deal with other fields of study.]

I understand and I certainly don’t fault you for doing so and quite frankly think you should- however, it is the manner in which you do so that I object to, and it’s also the fact that some of your rebuttles carry innacuracies that have been effectively re-rebuttled, and either you know that and are not pointing it out, or you don’t realize it. As I said- keep the rebuttles intellectually honest, otherwise I’ll continue to point out your innacuracies

[The reason for this is that I don’t believe you are doing science. I believe you are just lifting arguments from creationist websites trusting that they are correct, but that you don’t know whether their science is any good or not. ]

First of all Coyote- I don’t go over every site I link to with a fine toothed comb- I’ve studied many of hte issues being discussed here in the past and not having those links or books anymore, I do a quick google search for the information and do a very quick read throguh on the sites. You obviously are more interested in small issues like a few mistakes here and there and will go to great lengths to try to discredit the whole bulk of work on the sites by focussing attention on some moot points really- I’m certain most sites that run across points like the one that you pointed out, and post it on their site as a prop to their main points, aren’t aware that a point has obscurely been refutted on some website on the WWW somewhere and aren’t posting it to intentionally and knowingly mislead. I do however agree with you that once they are made aware, they should correct those minor points in their articles

[Because you are operating from faith, not science, no matter how many of their arguments I show to be incorrect it won’t make any difference to you.]

Now that’s just plain false- The FACT is that you ignore the major points- the themes if you will, and focuss on minor points in comparison to the bulk of what is being said. You’re refutting some points does nothign to undermine the majority of FACTS that are stated as well. Take that one point you brought up about hte charcoal- That undermines the fact that many many young dates are submitted to science and show not an old earth, but a young one how? I don’t care if you find 5-10 points on their (I’m confident you won’t however- but if you do- swell- fine and dandy- the MAIN point still stands as fact, as do many other points in the articles.

[It won’t bother you in the least to see those creationist websites demolished point by point, but the lurkers will see the arguments on both sides and make up their own minds.]

As I told you- bring it on, but bring intellectual honesty when doing so- molehills don’t = mountains, and shouldn’t be portrayed by you as equalling mountains as you are prone to attempt to do. If you wish to spend your free time combing htose sites with fine tooth comb looking for nit-picking arguments that do nothign to undermine the majority of issues brought up there- then that’s a different story-

For the lurkers, the amount of energy that has been released by radioactive decay can be determined by the isotopes that are present. ADDED- except when the dates taken show young ages, then all sorts of excuses are made to explain them away

[To pack that amount of radioactive decay, and that amount of generated heat, into 6,000 years causes major unanticipated problems, like parboiling the earth.]

Buit yet science tells us that major major radioactive bombardments caused all manner of mutations during certain periods, and didn’t ‘par boil the earth’ but rather excellorated mutations and caused all amnner of biolgically impossibly species leaps to higher orders

[If you want to postulate that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate because of the flood you have to account for the existing record of carbon and CO2, not just in Dendrochronology, but in varves, which can be counted, several kilometres of ice cores, geologic reservoirs and corals.]

You do know about hte problems with icecore extractions and with varves, right? I had an excellent article from a secular scientist (Who was refuting global warming at the time) who went into great detail about the problems associated with icecore samples- contamination, concentrations due to deepcore extractions etc. In fact- I beleive I ran across the article on Fox News not too long ago-

>>Buit yet science tells us that major major radioactive bombardments caused all manner of mutations during certain periods, and didn’t ‘par boil the earth’ but rather excellorated mutations and caused all amnner of biolgically impossibly species leaps to higher orders<<

So if all that energy were released in 6,000 years instead of billions that would be almost million times as much per year. I can see where a million times as much heating would be too much to live through.

But I haven’t really seen creationists argue that all that decay took place in 6,000 years - generally the answer is that God created the isotopes in that their recent proportions, possibly to test our faith.

That’s actually pretty hard to disprove. If you pick a date in the past and claim that whatever the state of the universe was, that God created it at that time in that state it is not clear to me that one can prove otherwise.

Fortunately, that is not science’s job. Science’s job is to look at the available evidence and construct the best model and testable theories and to never stop trying to learn and explore.

The only conflict come when we ask science to disregard evidence based on faith. Then the system breaks down.

>>It’s more than that- You say the evidence for radiometric accuracy is staggering- I say it’s built on assumptions about the past, on uncertainties etc. You feel there is enough to beleive that- many don’t- We see even secular scinetists confessing to the problems of radiometric dating, and regularly pointing out hte problems- You and I will have to dissagree about the accuracy as both of us have enough evidences to come to a strong conclusion either way about something that really can’t be known for sure.<<

We can absolutely agree to disagree.
And the dating is based on the assumption that physical laws are consistent.

But I hope we can at least agree that technical decisions should be based on what we can observe and made by those who understand the science in question. For example, one is free to believe whatever one wishes about space and the moon landings etc but technical decisions about the space shuttle should be made by our most knowledgeable technical people.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.