Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 646/1184
(20-Aug-2003 at 04:20)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
The thickness of the sedimentary rocks compared with current rates of sedimentation indicates a very old Earth.

In actual fact, if continents were old they would not be here! On the scale of one human life-span, rates of erosion are low. But for those who say the continents are billions of years old, the rates are staggering. A height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. It defies common sense. If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth.

This problem has been highlighted by a number of geologists who calculated that North America should have been levelled in 10 million years if erosion has continued at the average rate.


Again points to an old Earth

so tell me then, why there is now ample evidence that fine layering and lamination can form rapidly in flowing water — in the sorts of conditions that one could expect during various phases of the biblical Flood.

If you assume the oceans were fresh from the start and salt has accumulated since then you get an estimated age of the Earth that is far older than the Creationists claim, yet much shorter than the real age. That's because the salinity of the oceans have reached equilibrium.

Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated that the ocean must be less than 62 million years old (giving a maximum possible age).

The Austin and Humphreys calculation assumes the lowest plausible input rates and fastest plausible output rates. Another assumption is that there was no dissolved salt to start with. If we assume more realistic conditions in the past, the calculated maximum age is much less.

and no, the salinity of the oceans has not reached equilibrium - it is still getting saltier.
#41  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 647/1184
(20-Aug-2003 at 05:12)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
Continously resupplied by alpha decay, mainly of Uranium and its daughters. Says nothing about the age of the Earth.

Since 67 grams of helium escape from the earth’s crust into the atmosphere every second, it would have taken about two million years for the current amount of helium to build up, even if there had been none at the beginning.

The magnetic field undergoes oscillations all the time. That it is weakening at the moment is just random and proves nothing.

The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.11 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.

I'd still like to see you explain how radioactive dating can be many orders of magnitude wrong. for an extreme example, try to explain how the Oklo reactor can be a recent phenomenon.

I'll come to that later...

The conventional view of an old age can match lots of independent measurements of the age: sedimentation rates, radioactive decay, accumulation of mutations in DNA, speed of continental drift etc. Creationist "science" has to postulate new science for everyting. IMHO it is just stupid.

the conventional view of an old earth supports evolution which is why it is 'conventional'. Contrary to what you say, creationists don't make up new science - they work with what we know. the fact is people have been brainwashed by evolution for so long that you believe it all fits neatly together - which is not the case.

But once again we are getting off topic - this was an evolution thread, not evolution v creation...

A more reasonable religious explanation is just claiming that God created the Earth with all the fossils and sediments already laid down 6000 years ago. This may not be science, but it is also impossible to disprove.

It is also something the Bible doesn't teach...
#42  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 179/8194
(20-Aug-2003 at 07:56)
Please learn to qoute properly. You messages are a mess, dravid.

Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
In actual fact, if continents were old they would not be here! On the scale of one human life-span, rates of erosion are low. But for those who say the continents are billions of years old, the rates are staggering. A height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. It defies common sense. If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth.
That's why 2.5 billion year old rocks are very rare! Yes, continents are worn down, but new rock is also formed all the time. Surely you have heard about volcanoes, and what do you think all the sedimentary rocks are anyway? Obviously they have to be younger than the rock the sediments came from.

If you want to question conventional geology, at least learn to understand the basics of it first.

Quote:
so tell me then, why there is now ample evidence that fine layering and lamination can form rapidly in flowing water — in the sorts of conditions that one could expect during various phases of the biblical Flood.
There was no biblical flood. Had all the erosion and sedimentation happened during one year conditions must have been unbelievably violent. You can erode rock pretty quickly with suffiently large water flows, but not that quickly and the result is not fine sediments, it is a mixture of everything from mud to huge boulders swept along with the water. We see some deposits like that as remains from the last ice age, but had there been a flood, these would have been everywhere.

Quote:
Since 67 grams of helium escape from the earth’s crust into the atmosphere every second, it would have taken about two million years for the current amount of helium to build up, even if there had been none at the beginning.
It escapes into space at the same rate it is formed. Earth's gravity is too weak to effectively hold on to the lightest elements.

Quote:
The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.11 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.
The theeries fit well with the fact that we have recorded those dipole switches in rocks. Especially at the sea floor new continental crust is formed at a steady rate and the pattern of reversed magnetic fields give a striking pattern . There has also been computer simulation showing that the Earth dynamo is expected to change polarity now and then.
#43  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 648/1184
(22-Aug-2003 at 04:56)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
Please learn to qoute properly. You messages are a mess, dravid.
Is this better?

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) That's why 2.5 billion year old rocks are very rare! Yes, continents are worn down, but new rock is also formed all the time. Surely you have heard about volcanoes, and what do you think all the sedimentary rocks are anyway? Obviously they have to be younger than the rock the sediments came from.

If you want to question conventional geology, at least learn to understand the basics of it first.
So basically what you are saying is that over 2.5 billion years while rocks are eroded, they are replaced? I will assume you are talking about things like uplift and not just a volcano erruption...

The problem is however, although uplift is occurring in mountainous areas, such a process of uplift and erosion could not go on for long without removing all the layers of sediments. We would therefore not expect to find any old sediment in mountainous areas if they had been eroded and replaced many times. Yet, sediments of all ages from young to old (by evolutionary dating methods) are preserved in mountainous regions.


Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) There was no biblical flood. Had all the erosion and sedimentation happened during one year conditions must have been unbelievably violent. You can erode rock pretty quickly with suffiently large water flows, but not that quickly and the result is not fine sediments, it is a mixture of everything from mud to huge boulders swept along with the water. We see some deposits like that as remains from the last ice age, but had there been a flood, these would have been everywhere.
actually, plenty of experiments have been done showing that stratification and segregation occur spontaneously. Here is a reference for you - Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379–382.

Plus, on June 12, 1980 a 25 foot (7.6 m) thick stratified pyroclastic layer accumulated within a few hours below the Mt St Helens volcano (Washington, USA) as a result of pyroclastic flow deposits amassed from ground-hugging, fluidised, turbulent slurries of volcanic debris which moved at high velocities off the flank of the volcano when an eruption plume collapsed (see Figure 2).7 Close examination of this layer revealed that it consisted of thin laminae of fine and coarse pumice ash, usually alternating, and sometimes cross-bedded.
#44  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 649/1184
(22-Aug-2003 at 05:08)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
It escapes into space at the same rate it is formed. Earth's gravity is too weak to effectively hold on to the lightest elements.
The helium atoms must be moving fast enough to escape the earth’s gravity (i.e., above the escape velocity). Collisions between atoms slow them down, but above a critical height (the exobase) of about 500 kilometres (300 miles) above the earth, collisions are very rare. Atoms crossing this height have a chance of escaping if they are moving fast enough — at least 10.75 kilometres per second (24,200 miles per hour).

The average speed of atoms can be calculated if we know the temperature, since this is related to the average energy of the atoms or molecules.

The exobase is very hot. But even if we assume a temperature of 1500 K (1227°C or 2241°F), higher than the average, the most common speed of helium atoms is only 2.5 kilometres per second (5625 mph), or less than a quarter of the escape velocity. A very few atoms travel much faster than the average, but still the amount of helium escaping into space is only about 1/40th the amount entering the atmosphere. Other escape mechanisms are also inadequate to account for the small amount of helium in the air, about 1/2000th the amount expected after the alleged billions of years.


Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) The theeries fit well with the fact that we have recorded those dipole switches in rocks. Especially at the sea floor new continental crust is formed at a steady rate and the pattern of reversed magnetic fields give a striking pattern . There has also been computer simulation showing that the Earth dynamo is expected to change polarity now and then.
The problem is though, the evolutionary model requires at least thousands of years for a reversal. And with dating assumptions, they believe that the reversals occur at intervals of millions of years, and point to an old earth.

The nuclear physicist Dr Russell Humphreys modified Barnes’ model (Barnes was one who proposed a straight line decay) to account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection—hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly.

Which according to the 'techtonic plates' flood model is exactly what would have happened during a global flood. This means that most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern — rather, the total field energy would decay even faster.

This model also explains why the sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. Contrary to the dynamo model, the overall field energy of the sun is decreasing.

Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record Earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.

Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke — eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal.
#45  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 650/1184
(22-Aug-2003 at 05:11)
And while you are at it, I just came across this. Tell me, what do you make of it?:

Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.

This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.

The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of <58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth. And this age is brought down still further now that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past acceleration of radioactive decay.
#46  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 190/8194
(22-Aug-2003 at 07:15)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
Is this better?
Yes, it is much more readable

Quote:
So basically what you are saying is that over 2.5 billion years while rocks are eroded, they are replaced? I will assume you are talking about things like uplift and not just a volcano erruption...
Try reading some conventional geology. New rock can be formed through volcanism on the surface, lava intrusions at larger depths or sedimentation of the remains of rocks that have been eroded. If the rock is then submerged sufficiently it can be metamorphosed into quite different types.

Quote:
The problem is however, although uplift is occurring in mountainous areas, such a process of uplift and erosion could not go on for long without removing all the layers of sediments.
Sure it could. Sediments get covered by more sediments and by lava which act as a lid protecting it, erosion rates are *very* low in some areas depending on conditions etc. There is no mystery about how old sedimentary or igneous rocks can be preserved.

Quote:
actually, plenty of experiments have been done showing that stratification and segregation occur spontaneously. Here is a reference for you - Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379–382.
Neat effect, but I fail to see how it is relevant.

Quote:
Plus, on June 12, 1980 a 25 foot (7.6 m) thick stratified pyroclastic layer accumulated within a few hours below the Mt St Helens volcano
When you go around quoting stuff you are supposed to say so, or people may get the impression that you actually know all the stuff you talk about. Most of what you say are just straight quotes from http://www.answersingenesis.org/.

Quote:
The helium atoms must be moving fast enough to escape the earth’s gravity (i.e., above the escape velocity).
Here I found a quick link describing how it works. (And I don't pretend I've written this myself!)
http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp3.html
#47  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 651/1184
(22-Aug-2003 at 07:50)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
When you go around quoting stuff you are supposed to say so, or people may get the impression that you actually know all the stuff you talk about. Most of what you say are just straight quotes from http://www.answersingenesis.org/.
Tell me are you an actual scientist (as in someone that actually goes and does experiments, writes up results etc)?? I'm going to make a leap and say no... so that means that you probably quote plenty of evolutionists as well. Lets face it - Where do we get our knowledge from? Simply from someone else who knows what they are talking about.

So should I quote from my limited knowledge, or from someone that knows what they are talking about? The issues are the important thing, not where they come from.

Plus there are plenty of sites out there that I read like AiG - ICR, Christian Answers, Science Against Evolution...

Last edited by Aussie Dravid, 22-Aug-2003 at 07:52.
#48  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 191/8194
(22-Aug-2003 at 07:52)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.
It could be an artificial diamond and thus young. It may have been irradiated to change its apparent age etc. How can I know? I found nothing on the net about it except Baumgardners article in a cretaionist journal I have no confidence in.

Quote:
The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of <58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth.
An age of ~58.000 years doesn't fit very well with the bible either.

Quote:
And this age is brought down still further now that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past acceleration of radioactive decay.
Obviously this is a qoute from some web page, but I can't locate it with google. Care to give a link?

Here is a useful link:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/crecontents.html
It counters most of your arguments. Especially look at the "Not Enough Salt in the Ocean" part, which I didn't bother to pursue further. It seems Al ions "prove" the Earth can't be more than a hundred years old. Care to comment on that?
#49  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 652/1184
(22-Aug-2003 at 08:07)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
It could be an artificial diamond and thus young. It may have been irradiated to change its apparent age etc. How can I know? I found nothing on the net about it except Baumgardners article in a cretaionist journal I have no confidence in.
Ahhh thats right - it appeared in a creationist publication iot has to be false...


Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) An age of ~58.000 years doesn't fit very well with the bible either.
The issue is not how old it dated, but the fact that Carbon 14 was found in it at all...

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) Obviously this is a qoute from some web page, but I can't locate it with google. Care to give a link?
Heres where I found it:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp

Its a report of the actual study, which was done by ICR so it might be on their in more detail, I'm not sure.
#50  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 192/8194
(22-Aug-2003 at 11:19)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
Ahhh thats right - it appeared in a creationist publication iot has to be false...
It doesn't have to be false, but I know enough about how creationists twists science not to trust that it is true.

Quote:
The issue is not how old it dated, but the fact that Carbon 14 was found in it at all...
If you want to use it as support for a biblical version of history it certainly is important how old it is dated. You can't just celebrate that it seems to be too young for conventional geology without also admitting that it seems too old for your version. Neither can you ignore all other radioactive dating that gives a consistent view of a much older Earth.

Science is about finding the simplest possible explanation for observed phenomena. If you want to replace the conventional theories with something else you will have to come up with a consistent theory that explains facts better, not just point out a few odd results that doesn't seem to fit. There will *always* be odd results. People cheat, make mistakes or fail to grasp the full consequences of a theory.
#51  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 193/8194
(22-Aug-2003 at 11:29)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
Tell me are you an actual scientist (as in someone that actually goes and does experiments, writes up results etc)?? I'm going to make a leap and say no...
Don't hurt yourself on the way down. I've written a bunch of scientific articles, although not about evolution.

Quote:
so that means that you probably quote plenty of evolutionists as well. Lets face it - Where do we get our knowledge from? Simply from someone else who knows what they are talking about.
I don't cut&paste like you do without giving the source. That is rude, both to the reader and whoever wrote the original text.

Quote:
So should I quote from my limited knowledge, or from someone that knows what they are talking about? The issues are the important thing, not where they come from.
If you don't know anything yourself I'm just speaking to a wall. Why should I bother coming up with counterarguments if you don't understand what you write but only copy someone elses text?

Quote:
Plus there are plenty of sites out there that I read like AiG - ICR, Christian Answers, Science Against Evolution...
Try reading some real books and scientific journals instead. I know when I took a course in geology we had a girl who was a creationist willing to confront genuine science. She was very surprised on the excursions how well what she had read in geology books matched the real deposits we found.
#52  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 653/1184
(25-Aug-2003 at 04:34)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
It doesn't have to be false, but I know enough about how creationists twists science not to trust that it is true.
Sure I would be the first to admit that many creationist scientists stretch the truth to make it look like there is evidence supporting their theories, but I'm sure the same can be also said of evolutionist scientists.

Likewise I'm sure there are plenty of scientists on both sides of the debate that are genuine in their efforts...


Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) If you want to use it as support for a biblical version of history it certainly is important how old it is dated. You can't just celebrate that it seems to be too young for conventional geology without also admitting that it seems too old for your version. Neither can you ignore all other radioactive dating that gives a consistent view of a much older Earth.

Science is about finding the simplest possible explanation for observed phenomena. If you want to replace the conventional theories with something else you will have to come up with a consistent theory that explains facts better, not just point out a few odd results that doesn't seem to fit. There will *always* be odd results. People cheat, make mistakes or fail to grasp the full consequences of a theory.
The thing is with carbon dating, that it is based on the premise that the world is older then 40,000 years. Which would mean that if it isn't, then the whole process is flawed. Yet it still can be of some value - just the further you get out, the greater the measure of error.

As for this diamond, does it make sense that any carbon was found in it at all. No it doesn't cos it is supposed to be millions of years old. And the thing about theories is that if there is some evidence that doesn't equate to the theory, then you don't throw out the evidence - you throw out the theory.
#53  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 654/1184
(25-Aug-2003 at 04:45)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
Don't hurt yourself on the way down. I've written a bunch of scientific articles, although not about evolution.
And I'm sure you'll be the first to admnit that most of your knowledge has come from what other people have done.


Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) I don't cut&paste like you do without giving the source. That is rude, both to the reader and whoever wrote the original text.
Sorry. I'll refrain from doing it. But my intention was to deal with the science not who wrote it. I have found that as soon as you link something back to a creationist site, people tend to not deal with the science, but tend to attack the creationist organisation.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) If you don't know anything yourself I'm just speaking to a wall. Why should I bother coming up with counterarguments if you don't understand what you write but only copy someone elses text?
Who says that I don't understand it? Just cos I don't have a science degree doesn't mean I don't know anything about science.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) Try reading some real books and scientific journals instead. I know when I took a course in geology we had a girl who was a creationist willing to confront genuine science. She was very surprised on the excursions how well what she had read in geology books matched the real deposits we found.
And once again we come to the crux of the matter - creationists are not real scientists! Not to mention the fact that plenty of these 'pseudo scientists' have PhD's... or that some of them were also evolutionists for a large portion of their lives before they came across evidence they couldn't reconcile...

I suppose I could read some 'real' books. But the chances are there is plenty of stuff in them (sorry, but my knowledge here only goes as far as High School textbooks) that has long ago been disproved, yet it keeps reappearing edition after edition.
#54  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 203/8194
(25-Aug-2003 at 08:52)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
Sure I would be the first to admit that many creationist scientists stretch the truth to make it look like there is evidence supporting their theories, but I'm sure the same can be also said of evolutionist scientists.

Likewise I'm sure there are plenty of scientists on both sides of the debate that are genuine in their efforts...
I think it was James Randi who said about parapsychology: "There are honest scientists, and there are scientists who get positive results, unfortunately there is no overlap". The same can be said about creation science.

Quote:
The thing is with carbon dating, that it is based on the premise that the world is older then 40,000 years.
No, it is just based on the premise of radioactive decay being constant. Still C-14 dating isn't really a good example because the rate it is formed does vary so to get absolute dating with C-14 you need a reference scale. These scales can be provided by tree rings, sediment cores or in peats, but the proof of the age the relies on the accuracy of these scales. (Which IMHO is very good. Back to the end of the latest ice age we can date many events to the exact year).

Quote:
As for this diamond, does it make sense that any carbon was found in it at all. No it doesn't cos it is supposed to be millions of years old.
Diamonds are made of pure carbon, what else did you expect to find in them?

Quote:
And the thing about theories is that if there is some evidence that doesn't equate to the theory, then you don't throw out the evidence - you throw out the theory.
In theory that is how it works. In reality, if someone comes up with a result that doesn't fit an established theory you assume it is an error until someone manage an independent verification, and even then most people will assume it is some misunderstanding and that the result really can be explained if all factors are taken properly into account.

Some people will try to create new theories to expain this new result, but the scientific consensus won't change unless someone come up with a theory that can explain *all* results better.

There is *no* scientific theory for which there aren't contradictory results. Is releativity correct? Probably, but I've seen papers in serious scientific journals claiming to have measured signals propagating faster than light. As long as no one can reproduce them, few will be convinced in the face of the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory.
#55  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 204/8194
(25-Aug-2003 at 09:02)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
And I'm sure you'll be the first to admnit that most of your knowledge has come from what other people have done.
Yes, but one of the most important things you must learn in science is to be able to judge which results are correct. Not everything published in a scientific journal is true.

Quote:
Sorry. I'll refrain from doing it. But my intention was to deal with the science not who wrote it. I have found that as soon as you link something back to a creationist site, people tend to not deal with the science, but tend to attack the creationist organisation.
And as you found out, hiding the source won't help, because it isn't the source but the statements that people find errors in.

Quote:
Who says that I don't understand it? Just cos I don't have a science degree doesn't mean I don't know anything about science.
The way you avoid any scientific discussions where you don't have the crutch of these canned statements suggest the your knowledge of the science is very limited. I'd prefer if we went back to discussing the scientific evidence rather than this meta-debate.

Quote:
I suppose I could read some 'real' books. But the chances are there is plenty of stuff in them (sorry, but my knowledge here only goes as far as High School textbooks) that has long ago been disproved, yet it keeps reappearing edition after edition.
You are correct, all books contains some errors, and you are wise not to trust that everything in them is true. There is a famous error made by Newton in a calculation about gas diffusion that is still widely quoted in textbooks.

Creationists love to point out these usually trivial details while ignoring the large parts that are correct. And, of course, they do not have the same demends on their own work. Creationist "science" is so full of holes it looks like a swiss cheese.
#56  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 655/1184
(26-Aug-2003 at 04:24)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
I think it was James Randi who said about parapsychology: "There are honest scientists, and there are scientists who get positive results, unfortunately there is no overlap". The same can be said about creation science.
Right... so you are saying that all creation scientists are frauds/liers? Which would lead me to conclude that seeing you don't trust anything they say means there is not a whole lot of point continuing our little debate is there.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) No, it is just based on the premise of radioactive decay being constant. Still C-14 dating isn't really a good example because the rate it is formed does vary so to get absolute dating with C-14 you need a reference scale. These scales can be provided by tree rings, sediment cores or in peats, but the proof of the age the relies on the accuracy of these scales. (Which IMHO is very good. Back to the end of the latest ice age we can date many events to the exact year).
So the only way C-14 dating is effective is if you have another dating measure to 'fix' results that don't agree with 'conventional theory'??

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) Diamonds are made of pure carbon, what else did you expect to find in them?
So tell me what is the half life of Carbon? How long does it take for all carbon to disappear?

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) In theory that is how it works. In reality, if someone comes up with a result that doesn't fit an established theory you assume it is an error until someone manage an independent verification, and even then most people will assume it is some misunderstanding and that the result really can be explained if all factors are taken properly into account.
Like I said, the evidence doesn't fit so you get rid of it. So tell me, what constitutes an independant verification? When someone manages to get to the result back in line with 'conventional theory'?

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) There is *no* scientific theory for which there aren't contradictory results. Is releativity correct? Probably, but I've seen papers in serious scientific journals claiming to have measured signals propagating faster than light. As long as no one can reproduce them, few will be convinced in the face of the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory.
So you are now saying that evolution is full of holes? So tell me, how do you explain these contradictory results?
#57  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 656/1184
(26-Aug-2003 at 04:32)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
Yes, but one of the most important things you must learn in science is to be able to judge which results are correct. Not everything published in a scientific journal is true.
Agreed. But you say that nothing published by a creationist scientist is true.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) And as you found out, hiding the source won't help, because it isn't the source but the statements that people find errors in.
I never intended to hide any statements - its the beauty of the thing called an internet search engine. And from has happened since, I can only say I have been proved right.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel) You are correct, all books contains some errors, and you are wise not to trust that everything in them is true. There is a famous error made by Newton in a calculation about gas diffusion that is still widely quoted in textbooks.

Creationists love to point out these usually trivial details while ignoring the large parts that are correct. And, of course, they do not have the same demends on their own work. Creationist "science" is so full of holes it looks like a swiss cheese.
Well I guess that all depends on what you mean by trivial deatils. But I have to say, when something is in a text book as out and out proof for evolution, which has long ago proved fraudulent, then its not trivial.
#58  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 209/8194
(26-Aug-2003 at 06:45)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
So the only way C-14 dating is effective is if you have another dating measure to 'fix' results that don't agree with 'conventional theory'??
C-14 production rates varies with the amount of incoming cosmic radiation. You may get a rough estimate of the age of an object by just starting with an average value of C-14 production and counting halflives, but if you want an accurate value you need to know the variations in C-14 production. This can be done by measurements on tree rings, since each ring was produced at a certain year, and we do have tree rings stretching back a long time.

But then, surely you already knew this. I mean, you've stated that you do understand something about the science, and this is very basic.

Quote:
So tell me what is the half life of Carbon? How long does it take for all carbon to disappear?
Is this a trick question? Carbon (C-12&C-13) is as far as known stable. Some theories suggest all matter will eventually decompose, but then we are talking about half lives of >>10^30 years and there is no evidence this is correct.

Quote:
Like I said, the evidence doesn't fit so you get rid of it. So tell me, what constitutes an independant verification? When someone manages to get to the result back in line with 'conventional theory'?
What exactly is it in the word "independent" you don't understand?

Quote:
So you are now saying that evolution is full of holes? So tell me, how do you explain these contradictory results?
If I could, they wouldn't be holes, would they?
I'm saying that all theories have missing facts or facts that seemingly doesn't fit. Why should evolution be any different? You demand a perfection that is unattainable at the same time you are trying to sell a theory that almost completely consist of holes.
#59  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as SatanCE)
Posts: 14/80
(26-Aug-2003 at 13:58)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)

So tell me what is the half life of Carbon? How long does it take for all carbon to disappear?
Its a Half-life, it can never all disappear.

He who controls the Future, Conquers the Past. - Kane, The Brotherhood of Nod
#60  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lord Satan Add Lord Satan to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 17:35.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.