Circular reasoning or not?

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

In many cases the wheel and fire is cutting edge for them. Luddites did not die out, they changed their name

a reply to: borntowatch

It seems you have no choice so you are forced to accept what you are given in a faith like

The beauty of science is that I do have a choice, no faith needed... which is why as a hobby I explore alternative theories (to see if I can find a crack or a gap or even just a new way of looking at an old problem in the accepted literature).

For instance I still think there may be something to Expanding Earth theory, but as of yet I (and others) haven't conceived of the mechanism for the rate of expansion required to support the theory, so it is still just a thought experiment. Expanding Earth, Creation, Ancient Aliens, etc... are all alternative because no evidence has yet been found to support them.

There is lots of conjecture, but nothing solid.

I dont have a valid alternative, because I dont, I wont just accept anything offered.

That really sums it up then... you, and no-one else has been able to come up with an alternative to current theories that explain the age of the earth better.

Not "because I don't", instead, because if there was a valid alternative suggested, it would be incorporated into the body of knowledge and no longer be alternative.

... and you don't have to "...just accept anything that is offered...", you can verify the evidence yourself (much of it has been provided in links in this and other threads you participate in)... and if you do find an error, or a suggestive piece of evidence that points to a concept that is counter to the current scientific paradigm you will have many supporters. What you do in these threads is seemingly ignore the data in favour of your beliefs.

I have beliefs too, but I will suspend them in the face of contradictory facts, which is what dogma (by definition) is incapable of doing, and I will re-evaluate any beliefs I hold against the available data.

So far every piece of evidence discovered has supported and refined our current geological model of the earth, and our error deviation for geological ages is far less than 1%. That means that even in a worst case the known age of the Earth goes from 4.54 billion years to 4.49 billion years.

Do you dispute this?

Well prove it, you have given me your opinion and that has no value in the context.

Ok... what exactly is “it”? Is “it” that the earth is more than 6000 years old? How do you want me to prove it, since scientific papers don't seem to be good enough for you?

How about this?:
I measured a stalactite (which was in a very stable environment… sounds like the stalactite you saw was in a very volatile environment) with a laser, and tested the composition and amount of particulates in the runoff from the stalactite, when I was in high school (everyone in the class did the same experiment, and we all got very similar results). We then compared our results with over a century of historical data, estimated dimensions and figured out how long it would take to deposit that much mass with a constant drip.

We were very forgiving with our numbers, and erred on the conservative side of everything, and we still came to an age of millions of years.

This was one relatively small formation which reached millions... so for formations that are magnitudes bigger, or have a much slower rate of accumulation the numbers expand out to billions pretty quickly by inference… looked something like this:

We can count how long secretion takes to build up but it only proves that some people havnt got a clue

Why must you always include a condescending remark in your comments?

Why do people who devise methods of measuring processes prove that people don't have a clue?

That doesn't even make sense.

It actually proves that processes are measurable, and through inference we can estimate the properties of the physical world... more like they are figuring out clues.

a reply to: Noinden

I was using sarcasm hopefully to show Prezbo that he/she was placing a personal sterotype on creationist. Trust me I am not worried about my ability to reason. Logic is one of my favorite subjects. You have to attack my character in order to gain standing in the situation because its probably you who is beginning to fear their ability to reason.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It is indeed high irony that you claim to be upset with both "character attacks" and "stereotyping" of a philosophical point of view. I am not sure how you typed that last post with a straight face, but perhaps you truly do not see the irony?

None the less shall we return to the topic. Your own ignorance of dating techniques, your use of biased and debunked source material? Perhaps that the only circular reasoning here is that of you and your congregation? Come now, you might even find a more modern citation to try out on us.

a reply to: Noinden

You do know that none of your post do anything but produce a whole lot of nothing? You just toss out words that you think sound good, but none of what you have said holds any weight. You basically sit around and troll because it makes you feel smart...if you want to discuss the topic we can but you haven't even tried to have a discussion rather you want to sit around and pretend you know everything...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You are most welcome to that opinion neighbor. But this opinion holds as much water as sieve. When I post replies with evidence to your silly little threads, you ignore them. You can't handle scientific method, yet you try to discredit science.

a reply to: Noinden

I like science thank you very much. just because I disagree with some of it doesn't mean I don't think it is a beautiful thing. It is atheist who try and separate religion and science . The two coexist even more beautifully once your eyes are opened.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why are you doing the atheist argument with me? I'm not an atheist. I've never had a problem with my spiritual path and my chosen career. Then again, you (basing this on threads you've created) have a hard on for proving atheism as worthless. Similarly you have demonstrated that evolution is not something you either care to understand or perhaps you just can not? Don't know.

As for this thread? Why the hell would you post a creationist site as evidence for radiometric testing being flawed, if you were not a creationist? A young earth creationist no less. You get tared by the brush of those you associate with

I've done a number of labs on radiometric testing (its a chemistry discipline after all) so I know that site is utter trash

a reply to: Noinden

The site produces good concerns. Radiometric dating uses many assumptions. Since your an all knowing genius can you please enlighten us unworthy peasants as to what issues are in radiometric dating that are true issues? Radiometric dating is not perfect. So surely you have at least looked into what issues it does have and what can contaminate the findings?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Does it just? It provides "good concerns", quoting methods and papers decades out of date. Are you really sure you are not a young earth creationist? I am hearing quacking coming from you, and I might be forming a hypothesis worthy of testing.

To begin with your creationist site (and it is, it redirects the rest of the pages associated with that page to a creationist site, and that single page is based in a Computer Science department, which is odd, as CompSci has nothing to do with radiometric testing, especially at the University of North Carolina, which has a history of being misused by creationists, from departments outside of those who actually know about it (Chemistry, Physics, anthropology for example).

SO there is one bit of evidence. The lack of citations is another sign its quacking quietly to itself waiting to fly south when the revelation happens ....

The science? Rather than post a long technical post, which you will (as you have before) either ignore, or claim is too technical (Well duh its chemistry). You can start here

But in short (ish)

(a) As per you and your congregation the examples used are mostly singular examples of mistakes, decades old, which have all been corrected. Remember science iterates to improve, rather than remain static, and flawed. Thus the few examples which they have picked are isolated examples. Given the thousands of papers published, that is going to happen. Mistakes happen, Humans are involved. All dating techniques are refined with knowledge, just like carbon 14 dating uses tree rings, and ice cores to calibrate, the other methods do too.

(b) That page is not peer reveiwed, and you want to know why? Because it neither proves that the earth was created in the biblical time frame, or disproves the validity of the radiometric methods used. The "author" (whom ever that is) is unknown (oh but its not, but lets pretend that page is unbiased, and not creationist right? after all you are not a creationist, you keep saying so).

(c) No viable alternatives are presented. It is a straw man argument, set up, so the people who wish to pretend the earth was created a few 1000 years ago, can nod sagely and say "those scientists and their wacky ideas".

That is the short of it. Want detail. Read the paper, its why it was written. Want to keep your illusion, you will not read it, or admit you have. Be like the Scientologists, and not read about things that your masters do not approve of

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Noinden

The site produces good concerns. Radiometric dating uses many assumptions.

Not nearly as many concerns or assumptions as are made in the link you provided.

Since your an all knowing genius can you please enlighten us unworthy peasants as to what issues are in radiometric dating that are true issues? Radiometric dating is not perfect. So surely you have at least looked into what issues it does have and what can contaminate the findings?

On the previous page, I've addressed many issues alleged mostly by YEC proponents and include a number of references and citations with links to actual peer reviewed data as opposed to some kooky looking site that looks like it was made in geocities sometime in the late 90's. I link my previous post below so feel free to take a look and address the concerns you have after reading through the information I have and the corroborating papers.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Can you give me a source I can go to that supplies this information in support of supposed hominid evolution? One that actually shows that all the different types of dating systems match up on the age of those fossils?

factsanddetails.com...

Here's a good site that explains each type of dating that is used.

www.britannica.com...

This one is specifically about Homo Habilis.

www.pnas.org...

^Here is an actual research paper where they dated Homo heidelbergensis (one of our close ancestors)

They definitely don't take dating lightly. They used 2 different methods of dating (ref the materials section) and they used both methods numerous times on this single specimen. As you can see, they didn't just reference a nearby fossil or based it blindly on the fossil layer it was found in. They used different methods to date different parts of the fossil, including the teeth. There's a reason they don't release fossil dating findings and other information on new discoveries for nearly 10 years after they find the fossil. They scrutinize the heck out of it and make absolute sure their findings are accurate. Nobody wants another "piltdown man," so they are very careful today with such findings to avoid people making hoaxes or making claims about something they haven't fully studied yet. If you search google scholar you can probably find this information out for each hominid ancestor that has been found. It's all public knowledge for the most part.

What you suggested in the OP, is far from how it actually works, and they don't just date Index fossils. Index fossils can be very helpful to give scientists an idea which dating methods to use, but keep in mind that different methods of dating can cover different ages and also that they do indeed date the fossils as well to be sure. If I remember correctly, index fossils are useful in fossil rich areas, where they are literally pulling out hundreds or thousands of pieces from a single layer. It is never the be all end all when it comes to dating, but if you pull 100 fossils out of a layer and they all date to the same period as the layer, it makes sense that the rest of the fossils in that layer date to the same period.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Noinden

The site produces good concerns. Radiometric dating uses many assumptions. Since your an all knowing genius can you please enlighten us unworthy peasants as to what issues are in radiometric dating that are true issues? Radiometric dating is not perfect. So surely you have at least looked into what issues it does have and what can contaminate the findings?

I posted this before, but I'll do it again. You obviously didn't read it - not surprised about that. But sometimes beating someone over the head with the correct information will elicit a response - hopefully a positive one.

From the American Geosciences Institute

Age determinations using radioactive isotopes have reached the point where they are subject to very small errors of measurement, now usually less than 1%. For example, minerals from a volcanic ash bed in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, have been dated by three independent isotopic methods (Baadsgaard, et al., 1993). The potassium/argon method gave an age of 72.5 plus or minus 0.2 million years ago (mya), a possible error of 0.27%; the uranium/lead method gave an age of 72.4 plus or minus 0.4 mya, a possible error of 0.55%; and the rubidium/strontium method gave an age of 72.54 plus or minus 0.18 mya, a possible error of 0.25%. The possible errors in these measurements are well under 1%. For comparison, 1% of an hour is 36 seconds. For most scientific investigations an error of less than 1% is insignificant.

www.agiweb.org...

Now, why don't you tell us why they're wrong? What miscalculations did they make? What calculations did you make?

a reply to: Phantom423

Despite his(?) bleating that he is not a creationist, let alone a young earth one, SotL is really doing a great job in using their source materials, and acting like one.

No matter what evidence we use, we will be ignored. Its willful ignorance.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

Despite his(?) bleating that he is not a creationist, let alone a young earth one, SotL is really doing a great job in using their source materials, and acting like one.

No matter what evidence we use, we will be ignored. Its willful ignorance.

Yes it is willful ignorance - which is how cults attract their members. Hide information, play dumb, ignore anything that smacks of the truth or reality and hope that no one notices.

Regardless whether he's a card-carrying member of a Creationist group like Ken Ham's, the mindset is certainly apparent.

No worries though. We just overwhelm them with evidence-based science and ask for the same in return - which, of course, they cannot do. That's a trail of evidence in and of itself!

a reply to: Phantom423

Hmm I am not sure I'd use the term cult here. Rather I'd use the term ideology. I've (as a neopagan) had to deal with this sort of spiritual warfare for decades, as a chemist, I am more worried about criminal activities affecting my work than fundamentalists. However when I moved into bioinformatics I got a taste of that. My quest to help find better treatments for cancers, based on genetics .... made me someone who was playing god. Its amazing how the moment it involves genetics people of all sorts go twitch. As a chemist my fellow pagans looked at me like a traitor sometimes, as a genomics jockey, the fundies twitched. Now as an entrepreneur I'm just a servant of a certain golden bull

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

Hmm I am not sure I'd use the term cult here. Rather I'd use the term ideology. I've (as a neopagan) had to deal with this sort of spiritual warfare for decades, as a chemist, I am more worried about criminal activities affecting my work than fundamentalists. However when I moved into bioinformatics I got a taste of that. My quest to help find better treatments for cancers, based on genetics .... made me someone who was playing god. Its amazing how the moment it involves genetics people of all sorts go twitch. As a chemist my fellow pagans looked at me like a traitor sometimes, as a genomics jockey, the fundies twitched. Now as an entrepreneur I'm just a servant of a certain golden bull

I understand your position. However, the definition of a cult is: "a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices."

Creationism fits the description to a "T". I don't care what religion people follow - that's their choice. As a Jew, I have a lot of history, sentiment and tradition wrapped around my life. But my philosophical beliefs don't follow me into the lab.

Francis Collins, a devout Catholic and the head of the human genome project has said:

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming."

This is a man who understands that his God's work is his work. He understands that when he walks through the door into his lab that he's on a fact-finding mission. However the research turns out, whatever the facts show, he would not in any way corrupt the results to reflect a personal belief or philosophy associated with his religious beliefs. That's the difference between a great scientist who believes in his God and Creationists who intentionally corrupt the hard evidence to suit their god (note that the Creationist god is not capitalized).

I fight Creationism because it is a cult. Because it's very similar to Satanism which infiltrates the mind with false gods and false beliefs. It denies nature and reality in a way that's insidious because it uses Christianity as a prop when in fact it has absolutely no relationship to Christianity. Jesus was a Jew. And the Jews have a long history of intellectual curiousity and development. If Jesus was alive today, I have no doubt that he would stand up against Ken Ham and his ilk.

a reply to: Phantom423

I know the definition of a cult Cults get a bad rap in modern times. Rome was rife with them, and they did just fine .... oh wait.... oops No to be fair that is a rather modern usage of the word.

Creationism like all other religious beliefs is on a spectrum. A belief in a creator for example, not so bad. A rabid dogmatic attacking of people who challenge that bad. Every spiritual path has them. I get to deal with Volkish heathens who think Adolf got it right (despite his Christian leanings...sigh). You I am sure have the ultra conservative Orthodox crowd to worry about

Oh and look, another non atheist on the thread. Not on the side of Creationis congregation .... imagine that

Having just read through the entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that those arguing the creationist viewpoint are either trolling or afflicted with some serious mental disorders that prevent comprehension of even the most basic of things.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Why not both?