Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[YoursTrue]

If you are not interested in learning sciences of biology, then please by all means, keep your head buried in the sand like an ostrich.

Just don’t pretend that you know more about biology than biologists, and don’t pretend that you know more about fossils than paleontologists.

Your ignorance and your anti-science only demonstrates how very little you know with either subjects. And if you have no interests in science, why are you even posting here.

All you are doing is flashing spotlight on your religion and your Bible, where the flaws of Genesis Creation are revealed, whenever you write and compare Creation against Evolution.

But it isn’t just flaws in Genesis descriptions of plants and animals are insufficient, but also about how little the authors of Genesis understand the planet’s environments (air, lands and seas), and the astronomy of sun, stars and moon.

Now, we forgive the people who wrote the scriptures of not understanding nature, but for today’s believers to believe that how everything in Genesis is real knowledge, only demonstrated the foolishness of creationists.

And btw, if you think there are more in the Bible that explain something beyond bones and DNA...



...then by all means, make you outrageous claims of this “proof” of yours. I do need a good a laugh when I wake up in the morning.

And btw, proofs are something like mathematical equations. I highly doubt you have equations of “god did it”.

Unless you mean, you have “evidence”?

Evidence is OBSERVING some samples of PHYSICAL PHENOMENA. Again, I am dubious of you having evidence of “god doing it”.

So then it is apparent that many realize that science bases its opinions on conjectures. Determined from what they think is 'evidence.' And changes opinion when something new comes up to undermine their previous opinion about what, when, and how.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is the fossil records not enough? Is that not the same?

The fossil records are not enough to form a valid unerring conclusion about dating as well as placing the remains in a set of definitions categorically speaking. If you can show otherwise, please do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So then it is apparent that many realize that science bases its opinions on conjectures. Determined from what they think is 'evidence.' And changes opinion when something new comes up to undermine their previous opinion about what, when, and how.

Evidence is well defined in the sciences. Theories explain the facts, the evidence that we was available at the time of their formation. New evidence can lead to new details. Theories sometimes explain these new details too. Sometimes the theory has to be adjusted. What you have to keep ignoring is that as theories change they become more and more accurate and the changes become smaller and smaller.

It appears that you are misusing the word "conjecture" once again as well. You still do not seem to understand that the use of that word puts a burden of proof upon you. Please define conjecture as you use the word and justify your usage of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fossil records are not enough to form a valid unerring conclusion about dating as well as placing the remains in a set of definitions categorically speaking. If you can show otherwise, please do.

The fossil record by itself is never used for an absolute date. The fossil record by itself is used for relative dates. And that can be tested and shown to be accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fossil records are not enough to form a valid unerring conclusion about dating as well as placing the remains in a set of definitions categorically speaking. If you can show otherwise, please do.

And to answer his question properly you need to explain why the fossil record is not good enough. You only doubled down on unsupported claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you are not interested in learning sciences of biology, then please by all means, keep your head buried in the sand like an ostrich.

Just don’t pretend that you know more about biology than biologists, and don’t pretend that you know more about fossils than paleontologists.

Your ignorance and your anti-science only demonstrates how very little you know with either subjects. And if you have no interests in science, why are you even posting here.

All you are doing is flashing spotlight on your religion and your Bible, where the flaws of Genesis Creation are revealed, whenever you write and compare Creation against Evolution.

But it isn’t just flaws in Genesis descriptions of plants and animals are insufficient, but also about how little the authors of Genesis understand the planet’s environments (air, lands and seas), and the astronomy of sun, stars and moon.

Now, we forgive the people who wrote the scriptures of not understanding nature, but for today’s believers to believe that how everything in Genesis is real knowledge, only demonstrated the foolishness of creationists.

And btw, if you think there are more in the Bible that explain something beyond bones and DNA...



...then by all means, make you outrageous claims of this “proof” of yours. I do need a good a laugh when I wake up in the morning.

And btw, proofs are something like mathematical equations. I highly doubt you have equations of “god did it”.

Unless you mean, you have “evidence”?

Evidence is OBSERVING some samples of PHYSICAL PHENOMENA. Again, I am dubious of you having evidence of “god doing it”.

The problem isn't in observation.

 

[gnostic]

So then it is apparent that many realize that science bases its opinions on conjectures. Determined from what they think is 'evidence.' And changes opinion when something new comes up to undermine their previous opinion about what, when, and how.

Evidence come from observations of either the natural or physical phenomena that scientists would be investigating.

Such observations would and should provide INFORMATION about the evidence of the phenomena, such as when you closely examine the evidence like the physical properties of evidence, including any quantitative measurements, eg age, dimensions, mass, volume, density, etc. These raw information are often called DATA by scientists and engineers.

Data are also considered “observations”, just as any evidence or any experiments.
It is all the obtained observations that provide objectivity to scientific researches, so they are not conjectures or opinions as you claimed, because a lot of OBSERVATIONS are carried out by devices or instruments that electronically take measurements.

And often, all the data that come from devices and instruments are transferred to computers that can analyze the properties of the evidence for scientists, for engineers or other types of specialists, so again, these observations are not conjectures or personal opinions.

Electronic devices using for detecting and measurements as well as computers, often programmed to do all the precise calibration, and more importantly do much of the calculations or number crunching, so there are fewer human errors.

Machines, such as mass spectrometer can break down any evidence whether it be gas, liquid, solid or plasma, into molecules or isotopes, measuring their respective masses.

Multimeters and oscilloscopes can be used to measure voltage, current of any electrical or electronic devices or appliance.

It is matters of training and experiences to understand how to use these devices and computers and analyze the information for scientists, engineers or specialists. So they are not relying on personal opinions or conjecture.

People without training and years of experiences, like yourself, would be conjecturing about DNA or the fossil evidence.

The problem isn't in observation.

No, the problem is you and your inexperience, your ignorance, and your religious-based biased opinions.

 

[gnostic]

The fossil records are not enough to form a valid unerring conclusion about dating as well as placing the remains in a set of definitions categorically speaking. If you can show otherwise, please do.

Again, your level of ignorance are astonishing.

Paleontologists often have experiences in identifying fossils and minerals of the sediments or rocks they are buried with, but when it come to determining the ages of the fossils themselves, or that ages of the minerals or rocks, these are often taken to facilities (laboratories) that have the necessary expensive machines and specialists with experiences to use these machines, such as radiometric dating methods or thermoluminescence dating methods.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, your level of ignorance are astonishing.

Paleontologists often have experiences in identifying fossils and minerals of the sediments or rocks they are buried with, but when it come to determining the ages of the fossils themselves, or that ages of the minerals or rocks, these are often taken to facilities (laboratories) that have the necessary expensive machines and specialists with experiences to use these machines, such as radiometric dating methods or thermoluminescence dating methods.

For instance, the National Geographic Society discovered that the so-called archaeoraptor it prominently displayed in 1999 had actually been put together out of two separate fossils, unwittingly publishing fabricated evidence from the body of a chicken and the tail of a lizard. Archaeoraptor - Wikipedia
Not every forgery or miscalculation has been uncovered, but National Geographic did issue a correction.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, your level of ignorance are astonishing.

Paleontologists often have experiences in identifying fossils and minerals of the sediments or rocks they are buried with, but when it come to determining the ages of the fossils themselves, or that ages of the minerals or rocks, these are often taken to facilities (laboratories) that have the necessary expensive machines and specialists with experiences to use these machines, such as radiometric dating methods or thermoluminescence dating methods.

Sorry, but I find your lack of knowledge as to how fossils are dated appalling and sad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For instance, the National Geographic Society discovered that the so-called archaeoraptor it prominently displayed in 1999 had actually been put together out of two separate fossils, unwittingly publishing fabricated evidence from the body of a chicken and the tail of a lizard. Archaeoraptor - Wikipedia
Not every forgery or miscalculation has been uncovered, but National Geographic did issue a correction.

Yes, and do you know why that happened? There is a very important part of the scientific method. One has to publish one's results. But one needs to publish one's results properly. The team behind the Archaeoraptor find did not publish properly. In the sciences such a find usually goes through peer review first. That is allows experts in the field to check out one's claims. Instead they went directly to a non-primary source. National Geographic is not a well respected professional journal. it is a popular science magazine and often gets parts of science wrong. But since they avoided peer review that not only got parts wrong. They got the whole thing wrong.

Peer review would have immediately have raised suspicions when the team could not have properly described where and how the fossils was found. The alarm bells would have been ringing q1uite loudly in the prepublication phase and experts would have found that was a fraud before they published not after.


Ironically your example supports doing science properly. When done improperly, as the one's taken in by the fraud did, then very foolish results can be "published".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but I find your lack of knowledge as to how fossils are dated appalling and sad.

Prove it. Show that he was wrong. When you demonstrate your ignorance everyone here has shown how you are ignorant. When you make a claim like this and if you cannot support it then that is just a personal attack and is a violation of the rules of the forum.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Subduction Zone, it is good that @YoursTrue posts. Of course, he is not interested in learning anything, but posts such as yours are useful to members who are interested in learning.

 

[YoursTrue]

Prove it. Show that he was wrong. When you demonstrate your ignorance everyone here has shown how you are ignorant. When you make a claim like this and if you cannot support it then that is just a personal attack and is a violation of the rules of the forum.

Sorry to you and a few others because you make claims but don't back them up. Anyway have a nice evening, bye for now...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry to you and a few others because you make claims but don't back them up. Anyway have a nice evening, bye for now...

Oh my, false clams about others are personal attacks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone, it is good that @YoursTrue posts. Of course, he is not interested in learning anything, but posts such as yours are useful to members who are interested in learning.

Thank you. One small correction @YoursTrue is female.

 

[gnostic]

The fossil records are not enough to form a valid unerring conclusion about dating as well as placing the remains in a set of definitions categorically speaking. If you can show otherwise, please do.

And once again, you still don't understand HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

The conclusion are only valid, when there are enough evidence to support any model. And with sufficient number of evidence, you could say the model is "probable" or "likely". Models in theories or hypotheses are only true, as "probable", no models are absolutely true. Sciences don't work with absolutes.

There are however, no so such things as "perfect" or "unerring" or "inerrant" or "infallible" or "absolute" or any other superfluous adjective that are mainly used by philosophies and religions.

This "unerring conclusion" is your choice of words, not used by any scientists.

Second. Hypothesis is only PROPOSED or POTENTIAL scientific theory. It doesn't make hypotheses "true", until they have been rigorously tested, and verified.

Scientific theories, on the other hand, are tested models, and since they have been verified by sufficient numbers of evidence, the theories are accepted as factual.

But even with an accepted scientific theory, they are only "probable" and "true", as long as the evidence continued to support the theory...so scientific theories are only accepted PROVISIONALLY.

What this mean, that new evidence could possibly falsify the theory. So an existing theory can be refuted, if better or more accurate evidence refute the theory.

OR, a theory can be replaced by another tested alternative theory.

It is harder to replace existing theories. For instance, the theory of motion and the theory of gravity, by Isaac Newton, are respectively less accurate and less complete than Einstein's Special Relativity and General Relativity, because Newton's solutions were more approximate. However, you can still use Newton's equations and laws, because it is still useful...meaning there are still applications for the Newton's law of motion, for any object moving a lot slower than speed of light, and Newton's law of gravity are still useful to calculate the flight and trajectory of plane or to calculate of launching rocket to the Moon or to Saturn...you don't need Einstein's theory until you have something approaching the speed of light (Special Relativity), or if you take into consideration, measuring distant galaxy with gravitational redshift or gravitational lensing (General Relativity).

What I find absurdities are creationists who actually believe that there are real answers in the bible, when there are zero explanation in biology. It never explain how human or other animals anatomy work, never explain how Earth is spheroid in shape, or how it rotate, so that the Sun only shine on the Earth's surface (in other word, how there are day and night), it doesn't explain how the Sun stream heat and light, and so many other things.

No matter what you may believe, you cannot create light, just by saying "Let there be light". Light don't work with magic words, and only idiots would believe you create daylight just by saying 4 words.

Also you cannot create a fully grown human from dust or soil, because 45% of soil are made of minerals, especially silicates. Less than 5% of soil are made of organic matters, like bacteria, decay of deceased organisms, excrement and urine, etc. There are not even trace element of silicate in a human body.

The inorganic silicate minerals cannot magically turn into organic matters, like cells, tissues, organ and bones. Again, only ignorant creationists with no education in chemistry would believe Genesis 2:7.

Whoever wrote Genesis, clearly had no understanding of biology. And if creationists actually believe the creation story of how human were created, then they have the education of Iron Age simpletons.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, but I find your lack of knowledge as to how fossils are dated appalling and sad.

You need a specialist in nuclear physics to handle testing of radiometric dating. So unless paleontologists have past training and experience in handling radioactive isotopes and can afford the machines that calculate the age of objects, paleontologists are more likely to send their evidence to the labs for testing.

And when it come to dating ancient rocks that that are billions of years old, they would use uranium isotope (more accurate than radioactive argon isotope) for reliable dating. Do you seriously think paleontologists can get their hands on uranium?

More dangerous radioactive materials are monitored by authorities and governments.

I think the only person who lack education in how science work, is you.

 

[joelr]

The fossil records are not enough to form a valid unerring conclusion about dating as well as placing the remains in a set of definitions categorically speaking. If you can show otherwise, please do.

But fossils do both. Can you point to some data that suggests the dating is unreliable enough to warrant disbelief? Or problems with definitions?
Out of the 16 main dating methods (Carbon-14, Radiometric, Absolute, Radiocarbon, Seriation, Archaeomagnetic, Relative, Fission, K-Ar, Uranium, Argon, Electron spin, Paleomagnetism, Uranium lead, and a few others) what are your main issues with relative and absolute, the 2 main types of groups?

 

[YoursTrue]

But fossils do both. Can you point to some data that suggests the dating is unreliable enough to warrant disbelief? Or problems with definitions?
Out of the 16 main dating methods (Carbon-14, Radiometric, Absolute, Radiocarbon, Seriation, Archaeomagnetic, Relative, Fission, K-Ar, Uranium, Argon, Electron spin, Paleomagnetism, Uranium lead, and a few others) what are your main issues with relative and absolute, the 2 main types of groups?

From what I read, dating is often done by means of the soil surrounding the fossil, not the bone itself. While interesting, that is not the only issue I have with categorizing the bones. If that is not the case, you may kindly offer information about this. thank you.