Skip to comments.Science Becoming a Religion
Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua
click here to read article
Oh, and I wouldn’t be holding dendroChronology up as the infallible dating method that solidifies radiocarbon dating methods
[When will you get it through your head that neither “Woodmorappe” (nor you) have a clue about radiocarbon dating?]
Woodmorappe doesn’t have a clue? LOL- ah you are a funy funy guy
From your ‘bible site: “We could discuss the details of pattern-matching technique or the probability of error, but there is another, more quantitative way, to determine if the long tree-ring chronologies are accurate or not. One can use the amount of radiocarbon in the individual tree rings.”
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
“A great deal of subjective interpretation is required to judge between true and false rings and true and false pattern matches between different pieces of wood. For estimating the ages of trees that are still living, this doesn’t seem to be a significant problem, but when it comes to matching up wood from different trees, to create an extended overlapping chronology, the problems become a bit more difficult to overcome.” http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html
Two can play the links game all day long coyote-
Tree ring dating inacurate
From the site: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm#tree
“The following message was sent to me by e mail on February 11, 1998:
As one who has taught dendrochronnology, I have a few opinions on this particular subject. Also, one of my graduate students went to work for Ferguson in his lab at U of A, and in fact was the curator of his work after his death, and is presently probably the only one who knows anything about how he [Ferguson] produced the bristlecone chronology. Another of my graduate students gave a seminar to the lab on dendrochronology of fossil trees and had ample opportunity to analyze the procedures there, and to work with Ferguson for a while. I can say on pretty firm grounds that the Bristlecone chronology before 4000bp is fraught with problems and unanswered questions. While Ferguson was alive, he never allowed anyone to analyze his original data or the bases for the many suppositions that went into the establishment of the chronology. Thus the chronology was not subjected to the normal rigors of science.”
“But suffice to say the chronology before 4000bp is entirely dependent on C14 dates of the wood, and is thus tautologous. “
“Dr. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 method, which won for him a Nobel prize, expressed his shock that human artifacts extended back only 5000 years, a finding totally in conflict with any evolutionary concept. Older dates were found to be very unreliable (CRSQ , 1972, 9:3, p.157). By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions” Woopsie.
“Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years (Ceram, 1971, p.257-259).”
“Another classic C14 problem was noted for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northern Iraq. Eleven samples were dated from the various strata and showed a 6000-year spread from oldest to most recent. Analysis of all the archaeological evidence, however, showed that the village was occupied no more than 500 years before it was finally abandoned “ Woopsie- better trot out the ‘contamination’ excuse
“Mortar samples can be given normal C14 tests since mortar absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. Mortar, however, from Oxford Castle in England gave an age of 7,270 years. The castle was built about 800 years ago.”
“Data produced by the Petroleum Institute at Victoria, New Zealand, showed that petroleum deposits were formed 6,000-7,000 years ago. Textbooks state that petroleum formation took place about 300,000,000 years ago”
On and on it goes- and on and on the ‘contamination’ excuse goes. As the site states, some people claim that when dating anythign over 30,000 (supposedly) years, that ‘of course there will be mistaken dates given because the subjects are subject to contasmination- yet, incredibly, we’re told Carbon dating is ‘accurate up to 40-50,000 years. I guess when the whacky dating method gives a date ya like- then that date is inscritible- but when it conflicts, ya just claim ‘contamination’ But alas, the author of the site probably isn’t as degreed as you, so we can safely ignore the facts he presents- phew.
I find it incredible that you claim anyone that brings evidence that doesn’t support Carbon dating isn’t ‘qualified’ to do so (Despite the fact that the oens doing so in many cases are geologists themselves- not sure how you come to your conclusion other than by complete priori based baised.) Yet, when it comes to maligning ID science- you apparently feel yourself quite qualified to malign them DESPITE the fact that you both aren’t educated in their science fields and DESPITE the fact that you completely ignore their science aND worse yet, don’t even bother to study their science because you can’t get yourself past a NON issue- that they have PERSONAL beliefs OUTSIDE of their scientific investigations. you rail against them being yourself completely ignorant of the science they are conducting. A petty bias against people’s PERSONAL beliefs is apparently enough in your mind, to discount their science. You lecture others about pointing out problems with carbon and other radiometric dating t4echniques- requiring them to be fully accreditted scientists before they can voice the FACTS about hte problems, yet you give yourself complete liberty to ignore your own petty rules. Amazing.
From the site again “Anyway, as for C14 dating in general, it seems clear that many, many results are much too young according to the standard view, and that explaining away one or two of them does not appreciably diminish the problem.”
You don’t even bother to explain even a few away- your tactic is to rail incessantly about a site as though such railings are scientifically credible and sufficient to discount any problems that radiometric dating methods might have. And you have the nerve to call ID apologetics? Bahahaha.
Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian," supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).I am gradually tracking down the many phoney claims made pertaining to the radiocarbon dating process, but because I have to work for a living and don't have unlimited access to a major library it takes time. But, I have tracked this one down. It appears in a lot of places in creationist literature, not just in the one you cited. For example, it's at TrueOrigin.org as well.
False information due to sloppy research.
This is a difficult reference to track down because the actual page number is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question is on page 319.)
The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).
The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample:
Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia -- 1680 ± 170. A.D. 270
Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mourh of the r. Alabuga (41° 25' N Lat, 74° 40' E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan.
What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.
The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads "Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam..."
But the term "coal" in place of "charcoal" was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham's false claim without bothering to check its accuracy.
The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find "Pennsylvanian" in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years.
This is still another case where a creationist claim about science falls apart when examined more closely.
Vinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon, Vol 8, No. 1, pp. 292-323.
Another creationist claim shot down in flames. Yet you continue to trust those creationist websites!
Yes, please do track down one or two obscure points and pretend the following statement “By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions doesn’t exist as fact.
And pretend one APPARENT mistake renders the other facts listed on the site invalid- it’s funny to watch evos jump on a few mistakes as their only defenses against other true facts. When evos make mistakes- all sorts of excuses are made- when evos hide the truth and print half truths that are easily refutted- no explanations are given- Yet when a Creo makes a mistake- why then He’s automatically dismissed entirely-
By the way- that site trueorigins you listed refutes TONS of mistakes, half-truths and flat out lies perpetrated by your beloved talkorigins site- But I’m sure you excuse all manner of sloppy and false articles on talkorigins while puffing out your chest and pretending that site is ‘real science’ while any creo site with a mistake or two is to be dismissed entirely- it’s really quite laughable- but hurry along- therem ight be another mistake or two on the link I gave which will serve to brush the fact thaT “In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions under the carpet.
That is next on my list to cross check. I am sure you won't like the results.
And pretend one APPARENT mistake renders the other facts listed on the site invalid...
I have demolished more than one creationist claim regarding radiocarbon dating. I have even posted them to you. Don't you remember? Or are you ignoring those posts hoping that they will go away?
>>Science can only deal effectively with the present.<<
Its amazing the author could have so little knowledge of the subject and yet get published on it.
I would bet that the number of radio carbon tests is in the millions not just the thousands. And it would not be at all surprising if there were some errors and that someone had at some time expressed concerns about the errors.
I suspect that would be true of any chemical, physical or biological/medical test. What’s important would the type and frequency of errors. Radiometric dating is regarded as quite reliable based on repeated tests checked independently world wide.
As with many tests, it is important to avoid contamination. But this is a critically important method and very useful.
religion is about spirituality... religion is not about science.
If science is too dificult to understand, read a book, or take up 6th grade science.
Except that it the creation of a new species from an older one has never been observed. It is just a framework, like economics.
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.
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.
Give me a cite to just one fruit fly experiment done by scientists where the goal was to produce an organism no longer a fruit fly.
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 wasnt 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, Woodmorappes 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.
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 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.
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.
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 dont 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 didnt 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.
>>Its more than that- You say the evidence for radiometric accuracy is staggering- I say its built on assumptions about the past, on uncertainties etc. You feel there is enough to beleive that- many dont- 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 cant 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.
Amen, brother in pondscum!
Absolutely- the discussions really should just stick to the facts of science. One of the problems though with radiometric dating of course is the fact that it kinda leaves strict science and relies on assumptions- which of course can’t bew avoided as we obviously can’t speak from experiential experience about the past.
I do however think that anyone can discuss the facts that are presented, and I think we should discuss them, but should, as much as possible, just stick to the facts. One doesn’t need a degree to discuss issues that can be logically annalyzed.
[but technical decisions about the space shuttle should be made by our most knowledgeable technical people]
I dissagree- there are many fine minds who don’t have engineering degrees who can take the facts and come to intelligent conclusions based on the facts presented.
>>But I havent 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.
Thats actually pretty hard to disprove.<<
I agree- it’s hard but I don’t htink it’s impossible to discover pretty strong scientific evidences that might indicate this could or did happen- some would have different opinions about such evidneces of course, but science is about strengthening positions that are hard to prove.
>>Sciences 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.<<
You get no argument from me on this- I absolutely agree, and I believe that there are indeed strengths and evidneces to both positions
>>The only conflict come when we ask science to disregard evidence based on faith. Then the system breaks down.<<
Noone in ID is suggesting we do that- they gather scientific evidences that strengthen their position- the evidences aren’t religious based, evidences stands alone- outside of opinion- it’s our opinions of what the evidnece suggests that differs- the eivdnece itself is the science- anything beyond hte evidence, such as opinions- supporting one hypothesis or the other, is just that- opinions- opinions that either have the scientific evidences to strengthen them or not.. The arguments from ID for design have some strong scientific evidences that help shore them up, as does evidences for scientists who study microevolution- Macroevolution however rests simply on assumptions with very little to back it up scientifically, but that doesn’t mean the pursuit should end, it would however be ncie if it was explored and taught more honestly with both sides of the story being told, and with the scientific problems of both being discussed- It is when folks explore the problems that we begin to find solutions, but hiding the problems from people in education really is nothing more than teaching doctrine.
Ahayes >>Amen, brother in pondscum!<< Lol Good one.
Archaeologists engage in historical research,not scientific research. They look for evidence about the past and base conclusions on that evidence. Scientific knowledge may aid in that research such as by helping determine diets and diseases of people in the past. But the study of the past is not a science.
Geology is a science when it examines such matters as determining what geological formations might indicate locations where petroleum could be found. Determining how those formations developed involves historical research.
The global warming issue demonstrates political efforts to control science. “All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists—a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.”
We apply scientific tools, using the scientific method, but we are not practicing a science?
That is crap, and you know it.
If you don’t, I feel sorry for you.
Please educate yourself.
If funds are tight, audit a few college-level classes in biology, nuclear physics, and geology.
Then come back and let’s discuss.