|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,316
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,316 |
If evolution were true, you wouldn't still be a Toad 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Hehe..........I'm actually proof of DE-evolution.  The fact I'm a toad that can type just proves that God has a twisted sense of humor!
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
Toad, I understand what you are saying...but at the end of the day science is full of theories, ideas, and assumptions. Mostly darn good ones...but nonetheless. You said this: Quote:
Over the past thousand years, the iron-fisted grasp that the various churches have had on humanity has mercifully been slipping. They used to rule the world with their flawed doctrine and fear-mongering, but times do change, and people are able to make up their own minds. As science continues to make strides in answering eternal questions, faith has nothing but faith to fall back on, which means they are losing ground.
Maybe in another thousand years this will be said:
Over the past thousand years, the iron-fisted grasp that the various sciences have had on humanity has mercifully been slipping. They used to rule the world with their flawed doctrine and fear-mongering (like global warming...or freezing...or the "depleting" ozone...depending on which absolute science is right or wrong at the time), but times do change, and people are able to make up their own minds. As faith continues to make strides in answering eternal questions, science has nothing but science to fall back on, which means they are losing ground.
Ultimately, I don't disagree with your stance on the issue itself regarding the apparent evidence of evolution and the age of the earth.
However, I think you are making generalizations about those of faith - like your friend when he may actually be correct.
You do not know for sure...neither do I...neither does your friend.
I will however give you the point that some people of faith - like your friend - refuse to see the evolution argument. Just like many scientists refuse to see the creationism argument.
One day...all of us will find out...and then we will know who killed JFK...assuming you believe in that sort of thing. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Science uses facts, theorems, and tests to prove laws and to monitor such things as half-life, valence bonds, nuclear bonds, differential in electron charges between elements. Not a book with the first chapter stolen from another culture to dictate the fundamental laws of physics, chemistry, and math. Faith is not fact. If the science you speak of isnt true, without it you would not be here chatting on the computer, reading this forum or even using your cell phone. Faith didnt bring these things, science and an understanding of chemistry and physics did. The half-life of uranium 236 was the same a 1000 years ago as it is today or even a billion years ago. There is no disputing that.
May God help you Willie.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Lyuokdea:
I am not saying you are wrong. I am not saying the underlying scientific theories are wrong, I am just stating that the "assumptions" most scientists use are impractical and actually go against real world situations.
The main point I was trying to make is, God put creation into terms people could easily understand back when the Bible was written. To understand God there are a few things to understand.
1. God told man what he thought was important.
For example, when you throw a bone and tell your dog to fetch it. Do you explain in great detail to your dog why he must go fetch the bone you just threw?
I would say you probably don't, well in terms we are the Dog and God is the owner who feeds us. Our inteligence level compared to God's we would actually be much less then the dog compared to us.
No place in the Bible does God say dinosaurs never existed. God didn't talk about dinosaurs because they were irrelevant to mankind. They were not important to his plan. So why should he talk about them? He just never mentioned them because he deemed them unimportant to the overall grand scheme of things. Afterall, God knew we would find their bones, he does leave somethings to the imaginiation for Mankind to figure some things out so life isn't so dull.
I don't think any true age for the earth will ever be determined. It not really that important anyways. I know dinosaurs existed at one time, but their not important atleast not to me. They have had no direct impact on my life.
I just tend to believe in the linear history of man, We know man was around even before civilization due to the garden of eden and other gatherings/tribes of people. There is no definie time frame put on when these actions occured.
In my opinion, it could eqaully be 10,000 years or 500,000 years...both could be right or wrong determining man....as i said its not that big of a deal to me.
We know from written Roman Records at the times of Christ's Crucifixaion that:
one of the soldiers had his ear cut off, and Jesus picked up his ear and tough it to his head and it magically just reattached itself.
We also know that 1,000 of eye witness accounts from Greeks, Romans, and other cultures that Jesus heald the sick, the mame, and the lame(mame and lame refers to people missing arms and legs or crippled severly)
These people wrote of mens arms or legs being instantly regrown just by him merely touching them. They grew back arms and legs.
This is infact scientifically immpossible, but yet it occured because we have written records of it, yet even Jesus himself said many "still would not" believe.
what is scientifically immpossible is possible though God.
God inspires mankind to new heights, he wants mankind to acheive great things, all is possible though God. God comes from the realm of immpossible, I can understand how hard it is to believe in such a being, but miracles happen everyday.
What is a miracle? most are not familiar with one of the more intelligent Christians, that being Immanuel Kant
A miracle is an "exception" in the chain of events due to causality. In other words, a miracle is an exception in the chain of events of normal observable predictable behavior.
an assertion was made Concerning miracles and spontanoues healing this assertion provided a scientific conclusion.
what exactly was that conclusion?
A prayer followed by a spontaneous healing may be a coincidence.
The relationship between prayer and a spontaneous recovery may be a coincidence.
But that coincidence leaves the issue of the spontaneous recovery completely unaddressed.
to continue with Kant, he stated:
To base a belief or conviction on an exception is a front to ones own reason
A miracle is necessarily an exception. it is an exception in normal causality. it is an exception in normal predictable event. Thats what a miracle is.
The moment we introduce any criteria, any method where a miracle can be constantly,consistently, repeatedly, and predictably reproduced then it is no longer a miracle.
To base a faith or belief on a exception apart from a belief that exceptions do occur is to base an idea that one is to apply rule to that which is a suspension of rule. It is logically inconsistent and intractable. Kant pointed this out.
As incidentally the critique of both Christian faith when it is based exclusively on miracle rather then the faith of the continuous and contemporaneous existence of God, but also as a criticism of atheist critiques based entirely on the miracle.
So there are people everyday that are sent home given days or weeks to live that make full-blown recoveries that scientists and doctoros can't explain. Miracles are infact exceptions in the normal observable operations of causality. Since they are infact scientifically impossible yet they occur is quite telling.
Miracles "must" be caused by an outside force. When a Miracle can be consistently and repeatdly, and predictably reproduced its not longer a miracle.
There was a man a few months ago that had lung, liver, pancreas, and prostate cancer so bad there was "nothing" doctoros could do for him. They sent him home with pain meds and gave him a month to live.
he was prayed for, he made a miraculous recover. all traces of cancer magically vanished. he was still alive and felt great when doctors told him otherwise. there is no explanations for such a miracle except that God intervened into the predictable process of causality.
there are many things science can't explain. I think the Bible and science can co-exist because science and the Bible measure and observe different things (spiritual vs physical)
both could feed from one another, It just the atheist scientific community that has a drive to discredit God is whare I have a problem with them. They have yet to prove God doesn't exist...and they never will prove that.
just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
These people wrote of mens arms or legs being instantly regrown just by him merely touching them. They grew back arms and legs.
This is infact scientifically immpossible, but yet it occured because we have written records of it, yet even Jesus himself said many "still would not" believe.
It occurred because we have written record of it? Surely you can't be serious?
Quote:
There was a man a few months ago that had lung, liver, pancreas, and prostate cancer so bad there was "nothing" doctoros could do for him. They sent him home with pain meds and gave him a month to live.
he was prayed for, he made a miraculous recover. all traces of cancer magically vanished. he was still alive and felt great when doctors told him otherwise. there is no explanations for such a miracle except that God intervened into the predictable process of causality.
There are several more explanations.
Perhaps the Cancer Fairy came and took it all away. You can't disprove that. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
I honestly have no clue what you are arguing, or how it's supposed to be addressed to anything I previously posted.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Maybe in another thousand years this will be said:
Over the past thousand years, the iron-fisted grasp that the various sciences have had on humanity has mercifully been slipping. (etc)..
Looking forward doesn't equate to evaluating that which has come before. The Earth could be blown up by Martians tomorrow, but basing an arguement on that possiblity doesn't exactly wash
Quote:
Ultimately, I don't disagree with your stance on the issue itself regarding the apparent evidence of evolution and the age of the earth.
However, I think you are making generalizations about those of faith - like your friend when he may actually be correct.
My generalizations are more about how the Church (and I use that term VERY loosely, please understand) ruled the world based on not one shred of actual proof derived from scientific method, but rather from nothing more than stories handed down to them. Could those stories be based in some form of fact? Sure, but there's not one shred of proof, and that's where science has overtaken church doctrine. While science can't possibly prove everything (Stephen Hawking and his String Theory be damned *L*) they've proven more in the past week than theologists have proven in 2000 years. So where I have a problem with my bro and those like him doesn't primarily revolve around their beliefs, but instead around the fact that they won't even examine the facts behind mutation, natural selection, and evolution before making a judgement.  While I don't pretend to be a learned theologist, I've taken the time to explore much of the rhetoric behind Intellgent Dedign, which I've found to be filled with dead-end theories and suppositions that always come back to the same fall-back, circle-the-wagons position: Scientists, prove it.
There are those that to this day believe the Earth is 6000 years old. There's enough proof to refute that to fill the Congressional Library.
I'll be honest Willie, I think those people are just afraid. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't like the idea that what they've believed in all their lives could be so wrong, and that their way of life might not be passed down to their kids.
Let me give you an example of that.
After we got back to his house, I asked him why he refused to explore evolution. He said he just didn't have the time to put in the effort. I didn't believe it, but said ok, then in staying true to my devious nature, I set him up the knocked him down.  Later in the afternoon, I started talking to his wife about a TV program featuring (I know I'm gonna botch this guys name) Simca Jacabovitch. He attempts to use science to prove not only the Biblical Exodus, but to prove how the plagues could have been explained and thus be given credence as factually real. When I asked my buddy if he was interested in watching the two-hour show, he was all for bringing it over to see.
Simply put, he was afraid that his faith would be shaken with scientific fact (but I didn't want to antagonize him in front of his wife and kids *L*). After I went back home and got it then watched it, he had a little bit of a "see, told you" attitude about much of it. I asked him he would feel that way, and he replied because some of it was proven. My answer was that unlike much that's been proven via scientific methodology, the entire show didn't have one OUNCE of proof. It was presented in a fantastic way and made a ton of leaps of faith to prove things, but in the end, the nararator had zero proof that Moses or the Exodus actually happened.
That honked him off, hehe.
All I want is for people to be able to make up their own minds AFTER being able to examine the debate from all angles. If, after seeing what proof science has actually given the world, they still wish to believe that God made the Earth in 6 days some 6000 years ago, fine, more power to'em. However, that isn't happening, and many people of faith stick their heads in the sand or cover their ears because they are afraid.
I believe in a "God" and continue to search for the missing link (pun intended *L*) that bridges what science has PROVEN to the pure FAITH that Creationists fall back on. Until I see that bridge, I refuse to discount anything, which is more than Creationists or extremist scientists can say.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 42
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 42 |
I think you're over estimating the average person's logic skills with some of your desires for a better world...
Most people have trouble gaining a complete grasp of arithmetic let alone establishing a basic level of understanding needed to approach some of the science behind dating the earth... Or the universe for that matter.
When you account for that, it becomes a very simple situation to understand: Joey 'can't do fractions' basically has a choice between following the local preacher who speakes in language he can understand (emotional) vs some article or discovery Chanel special which tries to put advanced scientific theory into laymans terms-and still might as well be speaking Latin as far as he's concerned.
Ruckaholics Anonymous: We can help.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
Quote:
Science uses facts, theorems, and tests to prove laws and to monitor such things as half-life, valence bonds, nuclear bonds, differential in electron charges between elements.
Ok...I believe that. Where did you get the impression that I could not be convinced of same?
Quote:
Not a book with the first chapter stolen from another culture to dictate the fundamental laws of physics, chemistry, and math.
And?
Quote:
Faith is not fact.
Thanks...but where did I say faith IS fact? As a matter of fact, that is the beauty of faith.
Quote:
If the science you speak of isnt true, without it you would not be here chatting on the computer, reading this forum or even using your cell phone. Faith didnt bring these things, science and an understanding of chemistry and physics did.
Where did I say science isn't true? I can prove that my computer allows me to see things...I can actually talk on my cell phone. I also know that science has told me a lot of things that were touted as FACT that were later proven to be WRONG.
Quote:
The half-life of uranium 236 was the same a 1000 years ago as it is today or even a billion years ago. There is no disputing that.
OK, I can believe that. But...No disputing that? Are you kidding me?
Look...I can be convinced that the aging/dating process is fairly accurate. But there are assumptions in any model that CAN be disputed...not saying that I am disputing them. You may disagree with the dispute...but to suggest that "There is no disputing that" just isn't reasonable.
Science is where it is today because people have been disputing that which they did not KNOW or believe...and they went in search of knowing.
You are getting your 'boxers in a bunch' with the wrong guy. I can believe most of what science tells us...I can believe most of what the Bible tells us. I do not care how old the earth really is...although what I believe of what science has told me leads me to believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years.
Quote:
May God help you Willie.
Thanks...and back at ya.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
I also know that science has told me a lot of things that were touted as FACT that were later proven to be WRONG.
And the scientific community announced it to the world when it was discovered that past fact and ideas were wrong. Why is that such a bad thing, and why do you hold it against a group of people that admitted they were infact wrong? Would you rather they didn't and we just kept on doing our thing? When newtonian physics was shown to be inaccurate at relativistic distances should we have given up rather than admit we were wrong (albeit just kind of wrong)? No. Einstein thought up general relativity and we now have things like satellite TV, GPS, etc. from admitting we were wrong. And the thing is, it's going to happen again ad infinitum until the tribulation or we know everything about the inner workings of our universe, whichever comes first. Changing one's mind when evidence is presented counter to one's thoughts isn't a bad thing.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
For the love of Pete... I am NOT holding anything against science for occasionally being wrong...just saying that science has its limitations as does religion...I do not hold anything against religion for sometimes/possibly being wrong either. I am NOT saying that science admitting they are wrong is a bad thing. In following the context of Paco's posts, you will see that my comment about science sometimes being wrong is aimed at his apparent assertion that science is based on fact and is therefore correct. In his context...always correct. At least as far as uranium dating is concerned (and he/it very well MAY be 100% correct). Quote:
And the thing is, it's going to happen again ad infinitum until the tribulation or we know everything about the inner workings of our universe, whichever comes first.
I agree...and...that comment in principle is no different than this:
Quote:
I also know that science has told me a lot of things that were touted as FACT that were later proven to be WRONG.
It happens...gaining knowledge is a good thing...no doubt.
Quote:
Changing one's mind when evidence is presented counter to one's thoughts isn't a bad thing.
Every post I have made in this thread is at least somewhat aimed at that statement. The evidence remains the question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
For the love of Pete...
I don't know who Pete is, but you can have all his love if you want it, I don't need any.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Oddly enough, Pete's my name  Quote:
Quote:
I agree...and...that comment in principle is no different than this
I also know that science has told me a lot of things that were touted as FACT that were later proven to be WRONG.
That may be, but the way I read the statement is that since science has been wrong in the past, therefore everything science touches can now be in question, and should be doubted. Am I reading into this wrong?
Quote:
Every post I have made in this thread is at least somewhat aimed at that statement. The evidence remains the question.
And what about dating techniques remains in question. It is one of the most well understood phenomenon of science. Energy, and therefore matter, likes to be in a stable state. The only proof that's presented is that science has been wrong in the past, so therefore could be wrong in this instance, and that the laws of thermodynamics haven't always been constant in the universe. The first, IMO, is a cop-out. Our observations have always been mediated by our technology at the time, so therefore can't always be correct. And I'll say it again (Not for you WSU, but for others who think changing your mind is bad  ), being wrong, admitting it, then changing your mind isn't a bad thing. The second falls in line with the grasping at straws that creationists do in order to rectify their own beliefs, not anything that's said in the bible, with our observations of the universe.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,316
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,316 |
Quote:
God has a twisted sense of humor!
That explains why I am here
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,316
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,316 |
Quote:
Perhaps the Cancer Fairy came and took it all away. You can't disprove that.
Your right. However you can't disprove that God made the cancer fairy.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
Quote:
That may be, but the way I read the statement is that since science has been wrong in the past, therefore everything science touches can now be in question, and should be doubted. Am I reading into this wrong?
To answer your question above...yes...you are wrong. I was/am not trying to imply such.
Quote:
And what about dating techniques remains in question. It is one of the most well understood phenomenon of science. Energy, and therefore matter, likes to be in a stable state. The only proof that's presented is that science has been wrong in the past, so therefore could be wrong in this instance, and that the laws of thermodynamics haven't always been constant in the universe.
Again...taken in the context of my replies to others....when science tells me something is 3.5 - 4 billion years old, I start to chuckle. That is a 500 million year cushion. That's 500,000,000 years. In my opinion, if dating science is so accurate, where does the cushion factor in?
My guess is that the model being used has assumptions...assumptions that very well may be correct...but clearly have room for "error".
I am not a guy who doubts much that is presented by science...I get that science is based on a great deal of facts and physics and design...science is interesting to me but not my "thing"...too many assumptions for my liking.
I liken my stance here to weather reporters...they pronounce and present the forecast as if they are 100% correct. Then...when they completely miss the boat...no one says anything. We all know that they are just trying to guess what will happen. Even if frustrating, we appreciate the forecast...even when it is wrong.
Science similarly tells us things that we later find out aren't correct. Which we both agree is ok...sort of like the weather forecasting.
So...here's my point and what bugs me personally.
I would like weather reporters better if they would admit that the forecast is just a highly educated guess as to what will happen. We all know that to be true...so stop presenting it as 100% accurate. In the end, we are better off with weather forecasts no matter how accurate they end up.
I would like science better if they would admit that things like the ozone layer...global warming/freezing...and maybe even carbon dating are based on models and very, very highly educated/developed models and scientists and what they present is really what they think is accurate. But "it" may not be 100% correct all the time. In the end, we are better off with science no matter how accurate they end up.
I would like religion better if it recognized that science is correct more often than not...at least in the grand scheme of things. So it is short-sighted to not at least consider science in huge-picture issues like evolution. In the end, we are better off with religion no matter how accurate they end up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
In my opinion, if dating science is so accurate, where does the cushion factor in?
My guess is that the model being used has assumptions...assumptions that very well may be correct...but clearly have room for "error".
Let me try and help.
It's a catch-22, in a roudabout sort of way. The same process that allows us the ability to date things that far back in time hinders the ability to narrow a date down to just a few months.
In the case of half-life dating, because the rate of deterioration is so slow, we have the ability to use it to look very far back in time, but again, because it's so slow, it won't accurately measure something down to the day or month.
Another example on a bigger scale........one that's more applicable to the 4-billion year timeline you referenced.........is the background radiation which tells us how old the Universe is. It can't be measured down to the day, but it can be measured to a broader scale, so while it isn't factual to an exact second in time, it is factual none-the-less. The "cushion" isn't a direct result of erroneous errors derived from assumptions. Just because something cannot be proven down to the second doesn't mean it isn't proven.
I can prove to you that I'm 6'2. I can stand against a wall, and with the help of a tape-measure I can show you I'm 6'2. However, when measured down to the millionth of an inch, that 6'2 number is going to be factually wrong, even if the measurement has essentially been proven to be correct.
Does that mean I'm 6'2? Literally and according to the logic you're using the answer is no, but realistically and for all intensive purposes I've proven I'm 6'2. So, while you can say that literally a measurement of 5-billion years is wrong because it isn't measured down to the exact year, that doesn't mean the science behind the measurement is wrong in terms of providing proof that something is more than 6000 years old
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
Quote:
I would like science better if they would admit that things like the ozone layer...global warming/freezing...and maybe even carbon dating are based on models and very, very highly educated/developed models and scientists and what they present is really what they think is accurate. But "it" may not be 100% correct all the time. In the end, we are better off with science no matter how accurate they end up.
I would like religion better if it recognized that science is correct more often than not...at least in the grand scheme of things. So it is short-sighted to not at least consider science in huge-picture issues like evolution. In the end, we are better off with religion no matter how accurate they end up.
well said
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
Quote:
Let me try and help.
It's a catch-22, in a roudabout sort of way. The same process that allows us the ability to date things that far back in time hinders the ability to narrow a date down to just a few months.
Toad,
I'm not looking for narrowing down the age(s) to a few months...GMAB. I'll give them 10,000,000 years leeway...better than you get at the Age-Guessing game at amusement parks.
Quote:
In the case of half-life dating, because the rate of deterioration is so slow, we have the ability to use it to look very far back in time, but again, because it's so slow, it won't accurately measure something down to the day or month.
Hey...now you've got me wanting "the day". That's not what I expect.
Quote:
Another example on a bigger scale........one that's more applicable to the 4-billion year timeline you referenced.........is the background radiation which tells us how old the Universe is. It can't be measured down to the day, but it can be measured to a broader scale, so while it isn't factual to an exact second in time, it is factual none-the-less. The "cushion" isn't a direct result of erroneous errors derived from assumptions. Just because something cannot be proven down to the second doesn't mean it isn't proven.
Whoa! Now you've got me wanting the age down to the second? Who said anything about accuracy down to the second?
Quote:
I can prove to you that I'm 6'2. I can stand against a wall, and with the help of a tape-measure I can show you I'm 6'2. However, when measured down to the millionth of an inch, that 6'2 number is going to be factually wrong, even if the measurement has essentially been proven to be correct.
Does that mean I'm 6'2? Literally and according to the logic you're using the answer is no, but realistically and for all intensive purposes I've proven I'm 6'2. So, while you can say that literally a measurement of 5-billion years is wrong because it isn't measured down to the exact year, that doesn't mean the science behind the measurement is wrong in terms of providing proof that something is more than 6000 years old
Toad,
Where did I say that the science behind date measurement is wrong? I have explained my stance in this thread more than once.
Your explanation was very helpful...thanks...really.
However, at the end of that explanation - during which you took me from expecting accuracy from 500,000,000 years...to a month...to a day...to a second - only leaves me right back where I started.
Only now - thanks to the majority of your post and your point - I understand it better. But it's still an estimate based on many factors that make outstanding sense.
I believe the earth is old...very old relative to mankind. I believe the earth is older than 6,000 years. 1 - 2 billion? Sorry...that's an estimate...I believe it enough...but ...well...you know.
Then again...
What if God did not create uranium until 1,186,999,714 years ago? Then what?
(Just kidding in that last sentence...really.  )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Where did I say that the science behind date measurement is wrong? I have explained my stance in this thread more than once.
You didn't, to be sure, and yes, you've made your stance clear, and I find it to be pretty fair.
I was simply replying based on something you said about science making assumptions. Lost in translation is in effect.
Quote:
However, at the end of that explanation - during which you took me from expecting accuracy from 500,000,000 years...to a month...to a day...to a second -
Well heck Willie, I at least went the other way and gave you a day back later on in my quote
Obviously I didn't say YOU required it be taken down to a day or a second. What I really did (at least it looks this way to me) was to point out that in terms of really big numbers (you know, the ones that extend beyond my comprehension when I run out of fingers and toes  ) there's going to be a cushion where exact numbers won't be accurate, but that won't mean the estimates aren't factual. Reference my height example.
Quote:
What if God did not create uranium until 1,186,999,714 years ago? Then what?
I don't have the answer to that, Willie.
Not enough toes.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,562
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,562 |
In that regard, if the tape measure I use to measure you says 5'4", and we held the measures side by side and they were the same length, how tall are you??
As tall as whichever measure you choose to use.
In this argument, both figures can be correct...the units of measure changed somewhere along the way.
To this day we have different units of measure. If we don't have a way to cross reference the various units, we don't know what the measurements mean or how they compare to another.
Before we discovered the earth revolved around the sun and agreed 1 revolution was a year...a year could have meant a lot of different things...did people really live to be 400 years old...sure....by that uni‚ of measure, but not my the one used today.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
In that regard, if the tape measure I use to measure you says 5'4", and we held the measures side by side and they were the same length, how tall are you??
I understand what you're trying to say.
So, if the tape measure is representing the half-life of the uranium which is the basis for much of the long-term dating, we know for a fact that there's a finite span at which the radiation leaks out. (I'm not articulating that well at all, but my mind is also shuffling around papers for an internal audit coming up *L*) This essentially means that the tape-measure is accurate.
In short, you need a new tape-measure, Peen
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
So what u r saying is if my aunt had ball's.. she'd be my uncle?.....lol
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,562
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,562 |
Quote:
Quote:
In that regard, if the tape measure I use to measure you says 5'4", and we held the measures side by side and they were the same length, how tall are you??
I understand what you're trying to say.
So, if the tape measure is representing the half-life of the uranium which is the basis for much of the long-term dating, we know for a fact that there's a finite span at which the radiation leaks out. (I'm not articulating that well at all, but my mind is also shuffling around papers for an internal audit coming up *L*) This essentially means that the tape-measure is accurate.
In short, you need a new tape-measure, Peen
LOL...I don't need a new tape measure, we just need to have measures that are the same scale, or have a way to cross reference the two.
If the unit of measure was different when the Old Testament writing were written, that has to be taken in to account.
I don't doubt carbon dating is fairly accurate, and agree that in the scheme of things, giving a window of accuracy isn't unreasonable for the reason you mention.
Six thousand of one unit of measure can be the same as six million of another.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
I think this discussion of precision misses the point. Nobody is going to say "The earth is 4.59 billion years old, and those who say it is 4.58 billion years old are liars and cons". obviously the lack of precision in our measuring instruments doesn't allow us to say that. On the other hand, the evidence clearly points to an Earth which is billions of years old, not thousands or even hundreds of millions of years old. That in and of itself is an important achievement of science, regardless of whether it is 4.6 billion years, or 4.3 billion years. Looking it up, I believe the current standard deviation in the best age measurements is about 1%, which would give us a number 4.59 billion +/- 45.9 million (with 68% confidence), and 4.59 billion +/- 133.7 million (with 99.7% confidence).
The above format is the only way that measurements can even exist in science. No measurement is without error, and a measurement that is presented without a calculation of the intrinsic error is almost worthless. Some numbers are known very exactly (the fine structure constant, for instance, is dimensionless and equal to 7.297352570(5)×10−3, where the 5 is the first digit which may be incorrect. On the other hand, even well understood quantities like gravity have much larger uncertainties. The gravitational constant is known to be 6.67428 +/- 0.00067 m^3/(kg * s^2). (The large error is due to gravity being an extremely weak force).
However, even these relatively error filled measurements give us valuable information. During the Apollo program, for instance, they used the value PI = 3.14 for all calculations involving the trajectory of the spacecraft (and there are hundreds of such calculations). This measurement is ridiculously off, only right to 2 parts in 1000, but using it we still successfully landed on the moon. The Apollo program still had a tremendous understanding of what it takes to land on the moon, even if they were (knowingly) using an absurdly inaccurate measurement.
Lastly, I'll just note that the phrase "when the earth was made" is pretty ambiguous anyway, similar to the statement "when does life begin". Only this time, you're talking about tens or hundreds of millions of years between a group of rocks becoming gravitationally bound, and the advent of a single chunk of rock with a core/mantle/crust structure. Because of this gray definition of the earth being "formed", i don't know that we'll ever settle on a date much more accurate than what we currently have.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
achievement of science,
And there infact is the reason for all the skepticism.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
And there infact is the reason for all the skepticism.....
what do you mean?
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
He means that all scientists are agenda and money driven wackos that will say whatever they have to say to keep the funding flowing and they are all more interested in seeing their name in books than finding the actual truth... Isn't that what you meant Shotty?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
He means that all scientists are agenda and money driven wackos that will say whatever they have to say to keep the funding flowing and they are all more interested in seeing their name in books than finding the actual truth...
Isn't that what you meant Shotty?
of course...conspiracy theories, that must be where the truth lies.... otherwise why would people tell us the opposite of what we know to be true?
now excuse me for a minute, I need to head out and pick up my weekly stipend from "Science Conspiracies R' Us"... I get paid $5 for every pro science post on this board, so thanks guys!
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 07/13/09 01:53 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
otherwise why would people tell us the opposite of what we know to be true?
Because the mass believe what they read! and dont look at the whole pic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
why would people tell us the opposite of what we know to be true?
WE? as in you and I? They are only guessing what is true or false! Show me some proof...then we can discuss this, scince is all bassed on guessing game's...as far as in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Quote:
why would people tell us the opposite of what we know to be true?
WE? as in you and I? They are only guessing what is true or false! Show me some proof...then we can discuss this, scince is all bassed on guessing game's...as far as in the past.
Tell me what you would accept as "proof".
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
Tell me what you would accept as "proof".
in epistemology, a reason for or explanation of a proposition or belief
I cant answer that...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
in epistemology, a reason for or explanation of a proposition or belief
In above posts, I've already given you reasons. Whether you choose to accept them is completely separate from their existence.
Quote:
I cant answer that...
Then this conversation will be very difficult to continue.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
you are soo right....we each have diff. opinon's...to each his/her own
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
you are soo right....we each have diff. opinon's...to each his/her own
did I ever say anything different?
of course, that doesn't mean I have to put yours on equal grounds of legitimacy to my own....or that I'm unable to mock yours....that's what makes life fun.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
I'll add in that I don't think your views deserve any time in the public sphere (school, federal science funding, etc.) because they lack any evidence supporting them.
But, of course, you're allowed to believe whatever you want. Not trying to change that.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Earth 6000 years old
|
|
