Can any creationist tell me ...

[Guy Threepwood]

He is convinced that everything he believes is fact and anything contrary to that must be wrong.

That's what I used to believe, that's how it is taught, along with a heavy helping of 'intellectual superiority'

But it's not a terribly scientific approach to anything- it only betrays a bias against any contrary evidence, and historically only holds up scientific progress



“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact

 

[DavidFirth]

That's what I used to believe, that's how it is taught, along with a heavy helping of 'intellectual superiority'

But it's not a terribly scientific approach to anything- it only betrays a bias against any contrary evidence, and historically only holds up scientific progress



“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact

I think that although you and I believe very differently, we can carry on an intelligent conversation about it, at least. For me conversation with him is all one-sided, his side.

 

[DavidFirth]

I have friends who are diehard atheists that I get along with rather well. At least they respect my right to express my opinion.

 

[blü 2]

I have already defended creationism with you all I care to. You're stubbornness precludes me from doing so anymore. You don't listen to what I say, you just discount it.

What have you said that I haven't listened to?

I heard you say that you don't believe in science. I heard you say you put your faith in the bible. I heard you make demands that I 'prove' scientific things to you, accepted your offer subject to a little input from you (of which there was none to hear) and so on.

Meanwhile you can't answer any of my questions. Golly, you can't even tell me what you mean by 'accurate'.

With that in mind, why do you continue to ask me questions?

To remind you that you can't answer them without addressing the fact that the creo position is indefensible in reasoned debate.

All you are ever going to get in the future from me is: Show me proof or forget about it.

But, as you said, you don't believe in science anyway, so this very demand is not honestly phrased.

The creo way yet again.
.

 

[metis]

The "prediction" is always based on a preconceived idea of reality. The prediction depends upon a preconceived idea such as "this rock ought to be millions of years old" therefore it is tested with that in mind. Any result of only a few thousand years or a few billion years will be thrown out as the result.

Now all you are doing is fabricating stories, which is just another form of dishonesty. Any scientist who would be stupid enough to try such nonsense would be blasted by other scientific studies to the contrary.

I worked in science for decades, and I can categorically tell you that this simply cannot happen as far as selling such dishonesty because of both the peer-review process and the rapidity of how information is spread.

If all you are going to do here is to fabricate one story after another, then I seriously have to question what religious faith would encourage that?

 

[DavidFirth]

Now all you are doing is fabricating stories, which is just another form of dishonesty. Any scientist who would be stupid enough to try such nonsense would be blasted by other scientific studies to the contrary.

I worked in science for decades, and I can categorically tell you that this simply cannot happen as far as selling such dishonesty because of both the peer-review process and the rapidity of how information is spread.

If all you are going to do here is to fabricate one story after another, then I seriously have to question what religious faith would encourage that?

I totally disagree with you. The kind of story I told is exactly what scientists do.

 

[sayak83]

I totally disagree with you. The kind of story I told is exactly what scientists do.

Prove it.

Show this is the case for the scientific conclusion that earth is 4.5 billion years old, something you commented earlier in this thread. Let me see how you do.

 

[DavidFirth]

Prove it.

Show this is the case for the scientific conclusion that earth is 4.5 billion years old, something you commented earlier in this thread. Let me see how you do.

Easy. Scientists at the ICR once sent a rock to be dated by a secular group of scientists. They dated the rock and sent it back. The scientists at the ICR sent the same rock back at a later date and the secular scientists sent the rock back with a very different date. Now, how does that happen?

 

[sayak83]

Easy. Scientists at the ICR once sent a rock to be dated by a secular group of scientists. They dated the rock and sent it back. The scientists at the ICR sent the same rock back at a later date and the secular scientists sent the rock back with a very different date. Now, how does that happen?

Please provide the link. Also please link the reports of those labs.

 

[DavidFirth]

Please provide the link. Also please link the reports of those labs.

It was a long time ago. Look, buddy, if you don't believe me and don't want to look it up yourself, just forget it. But if you don't think they date rocks based on preconceived assumptions about those rocks you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[DavidFirth]

Check this out. Geologists do indeed make preconceived determinations during the dating of sedimentary layers.

"Stratigraphy is the study of strata (sedimentary layers) in the Earth's crust. Geologist in the 1800s worked out 7 basic principles of stratigraphy that allowed them, and now us, to work out the relative ages of rocks. Once these age relations were worked out, another principle fell into place - the principle of fossil succession. We discuss the 7 principles of stratigraphy first and then see how these apply to fossils."

So they are applying something they decided in the 1800s to the dating done today. Hmm.

Just read all the assumptions they are making about the rocks before they even have a sample in front of them to study.

Geologic Time

 

[sayak83]

Check this out. Geologists do indeed make preconceived determinations during the dating of sedimentary layers.

"Stratigraphy is the study of strata (sedimentary layers) in the Earth's crust. Geologist in the 1800s worked out 7 basic principles of stratigraphy that allowed them, and now us, to work out the relative ages of rocks. Once these age relations were worked out, another principle fell into place - the principle of fossil succession. We discuss the 7 principles of stratigraphy first and then see how these apply to fossils."

So they are applying something they decided in the 1800s to the dating done today. Hmm.

Just read all the assumptions they are making about the rocks before they even have a sample in front of them to study.

Geologic Time

I have taken graduate courses on the topic. So I know a lot about the topic. I am curious to know what had created in your mind the belief that the science in this is unreliable. So I want you tell me that you have studied in some detail so that you and I can have a sustained discussion.

The age of the earth is not based on relative dating. It's based on absolute dating, often done in a lab next to my own. So if you can hunt down the claims of discrepancy and tell me why you found those claims compelling we would have a discussion that goes somewhere.

Most of engineering is based on principles of classical mechanics discovered in 17th and 18th century. Does not make them any less effective today. Why does the date of discovery of a principle matter?

 

[DavidFirth]

I have taken graduate courses on the topic. So I know a lot about the topic. I am curious to know what had created in your mind the belief that the science in this is unreliable. So I want you tell me that you have studied in some detail so that you and I can have a sustained discussion.

The age of the earth is not based on relative dating. It's based on absolute dating, often done in a lab next to my own. So if you can hunt down the claims of discrepancy and tell me why you found those claims compelling we would have a discussion that goes somewhere.

Most of engineering is based on principles of classical mechanics discovered in 17th and 18th century. Does not make them any less effective today. Why does the date of discovery of a principle matter?

Well, I'm no Ph.D. so my knowledge is limited. I can't discuss it on that level as I have no formal education about it.

Well, I do know the dating methods result in far from precision. If being off by a few million years doesn't bother you, fine. But it does bother me.

How can a geologist know that no radiation or outside influence of any kind - for millions of years - has affected the rock in such a way that the dating methods can be reliable at all? Different methods produce different results and must be used according to preference. That bothers me, too.

 

[Looncall]

Well, I'm no Ph.D. so my knowledge is limited. I can't discuss it on that level as I have no formal education about it.

Well, I do know the dating methods result in far from precision. If being off by a few million years doesn't bother you, fine. But it does bother me.

How can a geologist know that no radiation or outside influence of any kind - for millions of years - has affected the rock in such a way that the dating methods can be reliable at all? Different methods produce different results and must be used according to preference. That bothers me, too.

Your ignorance is showing. Nothing affects radioactive decay. Geochemists know about the properties of rocks and about which kinds can undergo exchange of material with the environment.

Each dating method is applicable to a particular range of times. Where the ranges overlap, the results agree. The fact that creationists dishonestly contrive to have inappropriate methods applied makes no difference.

Any measurement whatsoever has some uncertainty. That is the nature of reality. The religion-addled don't like it? Tough.

 

[DavidFirth]

Since nothing affects radioactive decay I guess atomic bombs are just not possible. Sure radioactive decay is affected by outside influences.

The dating method is selected by the dater. It is not determined by the sample. And if it's off by a few million years why should I trust It?

 

[blü 2]

I totally disagree with you. The kind of story I told is exactly what scientists do.

Then you'll be able to refer us to relevant examples ─ ones that weren't discovered by the workings of the scientific process itself ─ without any trouble.

Please do so, and win the argument.

 

[blü 2]

Easy. Scientists at the ICR once sent a rock to be dated by a secular group of scientists. They dated the rock and sent it back. The scientists at the ICR sent the same rock back at a later date and the secular scientists sent the rock back with a very different date. Now, how does that happen?

If true, it shows that scientists and technicians are human and make errors.

But that doesn't point to any flaw in scientific method. And scientific method is your real problem here.

 

[blü 2]

Check this out. Geologists do indeed make preconceived determinations during the dating of sedimentary layers.

"Stratigraphy is the study of strata (sedimentary layers) in the Earth's crust. Geologist in the 1800s worked out 7 basic principles of stratigraphy that allowed them, and now us, to work out the relative ages of rocks. Once these age relations were worked out, another principle fell into place - the principle of fossil succession. We discuss the 7 principles of stratigraphy first and then see how these apply to fossils."

So they are applying something they decided in the 1800s to the dating done today. Hmm.

We still cook by applying heat. The evidence suggests we and our forebears have been doing that for some 2m years. Some observations about nature go out of date, and some don't.

So what specifically is wrong with those principles you mention, do you say? That they've been found to be erroneous? Or what?

 

[DavidFirth]

Then you'll be able to refer us to relevant examples ─ ones that weren't discovered by the workings of the scientific process itself ─ without any trouble.

Please do so, and win the argument.

I already have. Go back and read up.

If true, it shows that scientists and technicians are human and make errors.

But that doesn't point to any flaw in scientific method. And scientific method is your real problem here.

Yes, I have a problem with a scientific method that has a few million years error ratio. If a statement in the Bible was off by several thousand years you'd have a field day with it.

Off by a few million years? Yeah, I think all of modern geology is off by about that many years but it's only a few million years, right? So, no biggie.

 

[DavidFirth]

We still cook by applying heat. The evidence suggests we and our forebears have been doing that for some 2m years. Some observations about nature go out of date, and some don't.

So what specifically is wrong with those principles you mention, do you say? That they've been found to be erroneous? Or what?

No. What I referenced shows that geologists use preconceived assumptions before they even consider dating a sample. They use them during the dating process, too.