Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: DJW001

You're wasting your time. Every single one of cooperton's "talking points" he has already brought up in this very thread, to which each has been debunked with solid evidence (often by his very own sources) in this very thread. Such refusal to concede to evidence makes his claims of no bias look even more silly.

And don't forget, he thinks Jesus has been verified as the messiah using the scientific method. Because the scientific method is only reliable if it proves god. Or something like that.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: cooperton

epidemology and ecology rely on the theory of evolution

by epidemiology I assume you mean the ability of bacterial populations to adapt to particular toxic exposure (antibiotics)? These and other adaptive mechanisms exhibited by every organism on our planet are preset in our DNA coding - When Japheth migrated north through the Caucus mountains, generating the "Caucasian" lineage, the higher latitudes meant less annual sunlight, and thus the average skin tone became lighter because less melanin (which effects skin tone) was required; this is not evolution, it is adaptation.

That's simply wrong. What do you mean by "irreducible complexity" anyway?

you claim it is "simply wrong", yet you don't even know what I mean? An irreducibly complex system requires each and every component to be in place before it will function - think of the first cell, or an eyeball; these are non-functioning unless all the pieces are in play.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

"in the not-so-old earth category we have soft tissue being found in dinosaurs, carbon-dating showing an age of 4,000-40,000 years old for dinosaur specimens, "

The "soft tissue" found in association with dinosaur fossils are not evidence of anything other than methodological malfeasance.

So in other words, anything that contradicts contemporary dogma must be methodological malfeasance? The soft tissue was not found "in association" with dinosaur fossils, the soft tissue was from the dinosaur fossils. This isn't a rare occurrence either.

"and the consistent depictions of dinosaurs in human history."

These are Snakes, crocodiles, and dragons are not dinosaurs.

are they? Ask an unbiased child what the following pictures are of: Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: DJW001

You're wasting your time. Every single one of cooperton's "talking points" he has already brought up in this very thread, to which each has been debunked with solid evidence (often by his very own sources) in this very thread. Such refusal to concede to evidence makes his claims of no bias look even more silly.

When did you debunk the findings of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry of Georgia University that verified a 33,000 year old dinosaur specimen from C-14 dating?

Source (it's in the middle of the page)

originally posted by: TzarChasm

And don't forget, he thinks Jesus has been verified as the messiah using the scientific method. Because the scientific method is only reliable if it proves god. Or something like that.

It's unpleasant conversing with you.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: DJW001

You're wasting your time. Every single one of cooperton's "talking points" he has already brought up in this very thread, to which each has been debunked with solid evidence (often by his very own sources) in this very thread. Such refusal to concede to evidence makes his claims of no bias look even more silly.

And don't forget, he thinks Jesus has been verified as the messiah using the scientific method. Because the scientific method is only reliable if it proves god. Or something like that.

I know I shouldn't take this kind of thing seriously, as there will always be people like this, but the idea of getting involved in a debate again where I have to explain that the existence of God is not falsifiable, where I have to explain that CREATION is not falsifiable, is just sad.

I'm happy to talk generally about the difference between science and philosophy, but I tend to avoid evolution arguments for this very reason. They bum me out.

originally posted by: Greggers

I know I shouldn't take this kind of thing seriously, as there will always be people like this, but the idea of getting involved in a debate again where I have to explain that the existence of God is not falsifiable, where I have to explain that CREATION is not falsifiable, is just sad.

When did God come into question? I am addressing the scientific observation of 4,000-40,000 year old C-14 AMS date for dinosaur remains. I would honestly love to hear someone at least say "oh that's interesting, I'll look into it". But I get responses such as this:

"And don't forget, he thinks Jesus has been verified as the messiah using the scientific method. Because the scientific method is only reliable if it proves god. Or something like that."

Let's be cordial.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Greggers

I know I shouldn't take this kind of thing seriously, as there will always be people like this, but the idea of getting involved in a debate again where I have to explain that the existence of God is not falsifiable, where I have to explain that CREATION is not falsifiable, is just sad.

When did God come into question? I am addressing the scientific observation of 4,000-40,000 year old C-14 AMS date for dinosaur remains. I would honestly love to hear someone at least say "oh that's interesting, I'll look into it". But I get responses such as this:

"And don't forget, he thinks Jesus has been verified as the messiah using the scientific method. Because the scientific method is only reliable if it proves god. Or something like that."

Let's be cordial.

Alright, I'll give the benefit of the doubt here.

My first question is: What is the age of the fossil as dated using uranium or potassium isotopes from surrounding strata? I ask because the most common source of C-14 in dinosaur bones would be contamination.

Also, could you link to an article on the bone in question (apologies if you've done so already) so I know we're talking about the same thing?

originally posted by: Greggers

Alright, I'll give the benefit of the doubt here.

My first question is: What is the age of the fossil as dated using uranium or potassium isotopes? I ask because the most common source of C-14 in dinosaur bones would be contamination via soil.

Georgia University's center for applied isotope studies, a leading AMS C-14 dating facility, listed their procedure for ensuring no contamination:

"The bone was cleaned and washed, using ultrasonic bath. After cleaning, the dried bone was gently crushed to small fragments. The crushd bone was treated with diluted 1N acetic acid to remove surface absorbed and secondary carbonates. Periodic evacuation insured that evolved carbon dioxide was removed from the interior of the sample fragments, and that fresh acid was allowed to reach even the interior micro-surfaces. The crushed bone was treated with 1N HCl at 4 degree C for 24 hours. The residue was filtered, rinsed with deionized water and under slightly acidic conditions (pH3) heated at 80 degrees C for 6 hours to dissolve collagen and leave humic substances in the precipitate. Sincerely, Dr Alexander Cherkinsky"

Only tissue from the original sample would have surpassed this rigorous cleansing technique. the result was 33,570 (+/- 120) years old.

Source (around middle of the page)

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Greggers

Alright, I'll give the benefit of the doubt here.

My first question is: What is the age of the fossil as dated using uranium or potassium isotopes? I ask because the most common source of C-14 in dinosaur bones would be contamination via soil.

Georgia University's center for applied isotope studies, a leading AMS C-14 dating facility, listed their procedure for ensuring no contamination:

"The bone was cleaned and washed, using ultrasonic bath. After cleaning, the dried bone was gently crushed to small fragments. The crushd bone was treated with diluted 1N acetic acid to remove surface absorbed and secondary carbonates. Periodic evacuation insured that evolved carbon dioxide was removed from the interior of the sample fragments, and that fresh acid was allowed to reach even the interior micro-surfaces. The crushed bone was treated with 1N HCl at 4 degree C for 24 hours. The residue was filtered, rinsed with deionized water and under slightly acidic conditions (pH3) heated at 80 degrees C for 6 hours to dissolve collagen and leave humic substances in the precipitate. Sincerely, Dr Alexander Cherkinsky"

Only tissue from the original sample would have surpassed this rigorous cleansing technique. the result was 33,570 (+/- 120) years old.

Source (around middle of the page)

Is there no answer to the questions I asked about the uranium and potassium dating?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Greggers

Alright, I'll give the benefit of the doubt here.

My first question is: What is the age of the fossil as dated using uranium or potassium isotopes? I ask because the most common source of C-14 in dinosaur bones would be contamination via soil.

Georgia University's center for applied isotope studies, a leading AMS C-14 dating facility, listed their procedure for ensuring no contamination:

"The bone was cleaned and washed, using ultrasonic bath. After cleaning, the dried bone was gently crushed to small fragments. The crushd bone was treated with diluted 1N acetic acid to remove surface absorbed and secondary carbonates. Periodic evacuation insured that evolved carbon dioxide was removed from the interior of the sample fragments, and that fresh acid was allowed to reach even the interior micro-surfaces. The crushed bone was treated with 1N HCl at 4 degree C for 24 hours. The residue was filtered, rinsed with deionized water and under slightly acidic conditions (pH3) heated at 80 degrees C for 6 hours to dissolve collagen and leave humic substances in the precipitate. Sincerely, Dr Alexander Cherkinsky"

Only tissue from the original sample would have surpassed this rigorous cleansing technique. the result was 33,570 (+/- 120) years old.

Source (around middle of the page)

And this has happened...once?

Wait, is this the fossil "discovered" by Miller (head of a creation organization) being discussed here: physics.stackexchange.com...

Please tell me it's not.

That bone (if it's the same one) was taken from a museum under false pretenses. It was covered in shellac and preservative chemicals and was not suitable for radiometric dating.

a reply to: Greggers

Someone by the name of John Fischer. He wrote the blog thing.

Rather than re-inventing the wheel to refute the "young dino bones" argument, I'm going to link to another forum where the members did an excellent job of this already: www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk...

From:
www.dpreview.com...

To all following this thread. I’m a chemist with some earth science background, and with some history of investigating creationist claims. I found this thread when trying to find out more about the dinosaur C-14 story. I have seen the YouTube presentation:

www.youtube.com...

and looked at further details provided by the group behind this story here:

www.dinosaurc14ages.com...

There are many technical problems I could find, but one very serious one stands out. How do they know that the organic residue left behind after acid treatment is collagen? It could simply be contaminant, such as bacterial matter (“biofilm”). This was a big objection to Mary Schweitzer when she found soft tissue remnants in dino bone, so she did the appropriate tests and proved it was indeed bone protein. I can find no such tests in anything I have seen or read from the creationists in this case. There is only a brief mention on their website that the Triceratops and Hadrosaur bones, “were tested by a licensed lab for presence of collagen. Both bones did in fact contain some collagen!” What lab? How much collagen? What was the test used? Is it appropriate for this sort of material? What other things might give false positives? Will it detect collagen in the presence of contaminants? Were other things found? What is its detection limit? Without more information this assertion is worthless. Indeed the qualifier “some” makes me suspicious that they might have found either just a tiny trace of collagen, or collagen plus contaminating matter. Are they holding something back here? Nor is any proof offered, that I can find, that the organic residue left after acid extraction, and used for dating, was collagen. They appear to have merely assumed that it was. It could have been contaminant, like biofilm, or a mixture of a little collagen and a lot of biofilm.

This really matters. If what they think is collagen isn’t, but is merely contamination, then it negates all their findings at a stroke. If humic acid can get in, then so can carbonate (which exchanges with bioapatite, which can recrystallize, locking that carbonate in). And very likely so can bacteria, and other contaminants, which may account for what they think is collagen. And all this could have happened at about the same time. Once the bone became accessible to one source of contamination, it became accessible to them all. This would explain why the pMC values are similar across the different bone fractions.

It is very surprising that it took professionals, like Mary Schweitzer, years of effort, with modern facilities and exceptionally well-preserved bones to finally extract a tiny amount of badly degraded protein, but these guys, relative amateurs, are achieving it with ease.

It is even more surprising that it should be so hard, and unusual, to isolate soft tissue from dinosaur bones if they really are just a few thousand years old. Finding protein in them, and even DNA, should be routine, as it is for archaeological material. A point creationists seem to overlook.
Steve's critique could be one element of an overall peer review of this work. He has commented as a chemist and earth scientist on some of the chemistry that was said to have been applied in the sample preparation. Of course no mere abstract or oral presentation would warrant the efforts of a full peer review. That would require a full-fledged scientific manuscript to be submitted to an appropriate scientific journal.

My opinion is that even if written up in full manuscript fashion by these authors, this work would be unlikely to have been subjected to full peer review. Because of censorship? Hardly. It would be because the work does not come from credible sources and it does not contain the biological, paleontological and geological details required to substantiate the claim. It is unfair to waste the time of credible paleontologists by asking them to provide a full-fledged review.

If they submitted a manuscript to a credible journal, I would expected the journal editor to return it to them with a letter suggesting that they need to bring it up to the standards required for evidence of age of fossil material. For such an unusual claim that would likely include submission of samples of the dinosaur material used in their study to experts in the field for examination and comment. They would need to provide detailed evidence about its collection and its handling that would permit replication to confirm their "results." My guess is that it would be highly unlikely for them to produce enough detail and evidence to convince other researchers to put time and resources into such a replication.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: birdxofxprey

This is more than irony, I think, it is duplicity. Science, which cannot ground normative claims, is nonetheless dependent on such non-empirical unscientific claims for its legitimation. At the same time, the main observation about religion (used by some to show that science is superior) is religion’s ultimate dependence on non-empirical unscientific claims.

Refrigeration. Motorized transportation.Telecommunications. Soap. Penicillin and antibiotics. Beer. Architecture. These are a few (out of many) things all developed using science. These are things most of us enjoy on a daily basis. There is no way to scientifically prove that we are better off as a species for all these advancements, but they all work. They perform as advertised. Does that make science superior to religion? You can say no, but take a good look at the toy you are using to communicate on these forums and think about how much it would mean to lose electricity and gas and running water. None of that is a claim. People are living longer, traveling further with greater impunity and communicating more effortlessly than ever before. None of that is a claim. It's statistics.

Science causes climate change.

Eh... we cause climate change by being irresponsible with our toys. Science just helps explain how it works and what will happen if we don't take accountability.

The people who invented the internal combustion engine weren't morons. They were scientists. They were scientists in a truer sense of the word than most of our modern day "scientists" who don't have the balls to disagree with consensus for fear they might be blacklisted.

Can you please list a recent example of a scientist presenting VALID scientific data in support of something that goes against the status quo and getting blacklisted for it? And please don't mention the pseudoscience of ID, that's not valid scientific data in the least as there is no way to experiment or test a creator at this point.

I've asked this question to a bunch of people in this thread, including the OP. Thus far, it has been completely ignored. Folks keep repeating these ridiculous claims of people getting unfairly blacklisted, but nobody provides any examples.

Again, I'm aware of corporate greed and government wanting power. They regulate what science is to be funded and researched, and there's little you or I can do about that. But I have yet to see anybody provide valid scientific facts in a research paper and get discredited simply because it doesn't agree with the current models. Generally, you have to do something very dishonest to get discredited. The whole idea behind scientific testing and peer review is to ask questions and challenge current models and ideas. It's not to maintain status quo. The last 20 years alone of scientific development counters the idea that it all just stays the same or that they frown on new ideas regardless of the facts.

And if you would like to get onto more steady ground, take the atomic bomb, for instance. Clearly, this invention was pure science and the people who invented it cannot be said to be anything other than scientists. And the most damning part of the whole thing is THEY KNEW PRECISELY WHAT THEY WERE BUILDING! They knew exactly what it was and what it meant and what it would mean to the future. And they did it anyway because scientists believe in playing god.

And what exactly does that say about the Christian president along with other leaders that ordered and payed the scientists to weaponize nuclear technology? Did they not know what they were doing?

Do you really think that a scientist boycotting the creation of a nuclear bomb would change anything? They'd laugh at him and would just bring somebody else. Plus, even making the nuclear bomb does not mean they are guaranteed to use it. Military technology is a field that governments all across the globe spend the majority of their budget on.

Technology wins modern wars. Nuclear bombs are a leverage thing, and if they didn't do it, some other country would have first, and the outcome could have been way worse. What you are doing here is equating politics and philosophy to scientific research and development. You are looking to scape goat in hindsight. If anything, you are blaming the middle man here.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: BrianFlanders

If someone hit you around the head with a wrench, would you blame the wrench?

Totally! That evil scientist who invented the wrench knew full well what he was inventing and that it could be used to injure people in the future! What a scumbag!!!

a religion requires a deity or higher power.

that should be the conclusion of the debate, but somehow people still discuss this!

Hopefully those interested have had a chance to read the links I provided on the soft-tissue samples and the C-14 YEC date of dinosaur bones.

Now I want to point out three points of utmost importance:

1) Although incredible claims require incredible proof, the scientific establishment does indeed accept unexpected observational results IF such PROOF is PROVIDED. Case in point: Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue samples in a 68-million-year old T-Rex fossil. This is VERY unexpected. And peer review is a TOUGH process. However, Schweitzer was able to comply with all the rigorous requirements of peer review so her findings could be duplicated and reviewed, and the establishment ACCEPTED that soft-tissue had indeed been discovered.

2) The C-14 dates of dinosaur bones were were never accepted by mainstream science because adequate evidence was not provided.Where are the bone samples so other scientists can run their own tests? Where are the scientific explanations of the process used to identify collagen and the exact findings of that process? Where are the SUBMISSIONS to legitimate scientific, peer-reviewed journals? Where are the radiometric dating results of surrounding strata? I'll tell you: Nowhere. These creationists were not interested in making scientific history. They were interested in generating favorable press with the YEC crowd.

3) Mary Schweitzer later was able to establish that the soft-tissue had been able to survive because iron in the dinosaur's body preserved it before it could decay. Read more here: www.livescience.com...

In a nice tidy package, the differences between the bad science of the C-14 data and the good science of the soft-tissue samples pretty much debunks the entire premise of the thread.

Duplicate

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Ask Galeleo about about science and religion.

I suspect that those that call science a religion, do so out of fear.

Fear of what, I'm not sure.

Fear of their chosen religion being snuffed out?
Fear that real science trumps their pseudo-scientific beliefs?

I will venture that the OP takes a little from column A and a little from column B.

]

I can't S&F you enough. I was thinking the same thing.

I'd also like to see those scientific method questions Sremmos80 posted answered (poor guys, we all know that the answer to each question is no). Oh and how do these guys account for scientific dogma (because there isn't any, everything changes as new info is uncovered). And last but not least, I would like to see who this science Deity is. Buddhism doesn't have one? You don't know Buddhism. You are going to be the deity in that one (if you get it right) and Buddha is the guy there proving it can be done. He's worshiped, just not the way the xian god is.

Holy Science! Hail Tyson. I just skipped dozens of pages by replying to a post to early in the thread. This is obviously a miracle handed down to me by the god Turing (hey look how progressive we are, we have a gay god. do you have one of those xians?) Thank you for your bounty oh great Segan

a reply to: cooperton

by epidemiology I assume you mean the ability of bacterial populations to adapt to particular toxic exposure (antibiotics)? These and other adaptive mechanisms exhibited by every organism on our planet are preset in our DNA coding

But it demonstrates how environment places pressure on the genetic coding. If bacteria do not have an adaptation, they can die off. If they undergo a mutation, changing the coding, they will survive.

- When Japheth migrated north through the Caucus mountains, generating the "Caucasian" lineage, the higher latitudes meant less annual sunlight, and thus the average skin tone became lighter because less melanin (which effects skin tone) was required; this is not evolution, it is adaptation.

You are being teleological. In an environment where the sunlight was not as intense, fairer skinned individuals were not at a disadvantage and the mutation proved harmless. Humanity has not been around long enough for speciation to occur. Horses and donkeys had a common ancestor. Because the populations were separated, their traits began to diverge. In time, they became two different species. Nevertheless, their ability to interbreed proves that they have a common set of genes and, therefore, a common ancestor.

An irreducibly complex system requires each and every component to be in place before it will function - think of the first cell, or an eyeball; these are non-functioning unless all the pieces are in play.

That's what I thought you meant: the latest variation on the old "everything that exists must be created" fallacy. Stars are incredibly complex systems of atoms fusing into other atoms, generating heat, light, and magnetism. They have convection cells, complicated rotation, are prone to storms.... all of which happen because well, that's what happens when enough gas comes together. If there is not enough gas, it becomes a planet rather than a star. "Irreducible complexity?"

There are creatures that have light sensitive cells that do not have lenses; this is a simple, functioning eye. Any mutation that is not harmful can be passed along. Sometimes a harmless mutation will mutate again, until it develops a function. If the function is survival positive, it will be passed on.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

No-one has ever produced an example.

So in other words, anything that contradicts contemporary dogma must be methodological malfeasance? The soft tissue was not found "in association" with dinosaur fossils, the soft tissue was from the dinosaur fossils. This isn't a rare occurrence either.

No; analyzing a sample that has been colored in shellac or contaminated by mold is.

"and the consistent depictions of dinosaurs in human history."

These are Snakes, crocodiles, and dragons are not dinosaurs.


are they? Ask an unbiased child what the following pictures are of: Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

At least you admit that only a child would think that fantasy creatures are real. The ancients depicted gryphons, manticores, centaurs, and other incredible beasts. A child would identify these as real too.

Edit To Add: So what would the survival of dinosaurs into relatively modern times mean anyway? Every once in a while an ancient species thought to be long extinct is turned up, like the coelocanth. Let's assume that there is a Conan Doyle like survival of dinosaurs on some island somewhere. So what? That doesn't invalidate either Darwin or geology, it's just a fluke. (The dinosaurs would have continued evolving, incidentally, perhaps turning into the "reptilian aliens" populating the UFO and ET forum.)

Now, let's get back to the questions you won't answer because they render your arguments irrelevant: How long do you think it took to carve the Grand Canyon? Why are there fossil sea shells on top of mountains? If mountains rise only a millimeter or two per year, where did the Himalayas come from? And, anticipating your answer: why would a creator being make a world designed to look more ancient than it really is?