Notices
Results 1 to 71 of 71

Thread: hey, check out my new signature...

  1. #1 hey, check out my new signature... 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    true story...it was in response to "if the universe is 6000 years old, then how are we getting light from stars that's older than that?"


    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    light ? particle ? what does he think they are, billiard balls ?


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    If anything, I think the creationists are a little bit more than troubled by that problem than they might want to show. I don't think you'll see that solution in any literature they might pump out, just careful avoidance.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I usually expect a response like "You just ASSUME that the speed of light has always been the same" or something like that. Some law in the past was different so our results are wrong. They are really big on accusing science of making all kinds of unfounded assumptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    You might want to a little spell checking.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    then again, if you're willing to deny the reality of fossils on the grounds that god created them with a resemblance of ancientness, it's only a small step further to do the same for light
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 just a thought 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    "Why could the omnipotent (all powerful) God put each little light particle some where between earth and the galaxies in its excact location to where it gets here excaclty when it need to when he created the earth He didnt have to make that light particles start ot that star"

    The popularly accepted model of the universe in which the age of stars is calculated could be wrong. We have been mistaken about things generally accepted as scientific fact many times in the past.

    My question is how accurate can we possibly be with such a narrow window of observation? We talk about Billions of light years when we haven't physically traveled 1. We talk about Billions of years when we have only been Scientifically Observing for a few hundred years. I think the odds are against us having it right at all

    I'm not saying science is useless but I do think science has been misused.

    There are many creationists that have issues with lots of things that are "scientific Fact". C

    As a creationist once told me, " The bible doesn't contradict science, science exists with the realm that god created." Most of the christian scientists I have spoken with don't have a problem with fossils. They do have a problem with the popularly accepted way they are said to have formed.

    Just a few humble thoughts
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: just a thought 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    There are many creationists that have issues with lots of things that are "scientific Fact".
    could it possibly be that the issues arise from a perceived conflict with "revealed fact" ?

    most creationists expound on issues without having any knowledge or understanding of the scientific theories they oppose
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    You are right. Creationist often speak without sound understanding or evidence. The same thing can be spoken of evolutionists.

    What complicates the issue is illustrated in your question.

    ... percieved conflict with "revealed fact"?

    ... or understanding of the scientific theories they oppose.

    Fact VS Theory. I feel that there are many things discussed and accepted as fact that should still be in the hypethesis stage of thought.
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    yes, let's make the distinction between fact and theory

    gravity is fact - whether the current theories of gravity fully explain gravity only time will tell

    evolution is fact - whether the current theories of evolution fully explain evolution only time will tell
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    The effect of gravity is fact. Scientific Fact that is. We hypothesised and experimented, observed and gathered information so that we can now predict the effect of gravity on many things.

    We have no real idea how gravity works we only know that it exists as a phenomenon.


    Evolution as well as creation are non observable. So to call them scientific fact we have to throw scientific method out the window and come up with a new system of creating scientific law absent of observation and repetition. All we have to base knowledge on is a hypthesis of the origins of life, cosmology, etc and a very small window of ovservation (our life). Scientifically anything beyond the realm of our direct observation is supposition or accepted by faith.

    Just as the evolutionary viewpoint dictates in our minds the way we see the "evidence", the creationist is likewise influenced by his veiwpoint.

    If we are going to truly study the world scietifically we cannot use assumptions or unproven "hypothesis" to be a foundational part of a scientific Law.

    Does the scientific study of the world have to be done absent of the concept of a diety? What if there really is one? and how could you prove scientifically that there is not?

    S
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    Evolution as well as creation are non observable.
    half correct - creation is not observable
    evolution has already been observed in action so many times that it would be perverse to call it non-observable

    just google for "evolution in action" and see what comes up

    for instance the following from Science and the AAAS
    also, try and find Jonathan Weiner's "The beak of the finch" : it's enlightening reading for anyone willing to see what is self-evident
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    What may be confusing you here couldbewrong is that results in science are always provisional. I suspect you are well aware of this since your forum name says exactly what science says: "we could be wrong". Science concedes that some new facts/observations/understanding could emerge in the future that would lead to an alternative explanation to evolution. However, as marnixR has said the mass of observations, independent corroborations, mutually supportive hypotheses, and the like make such an event a practical impossibility. Evolution by descent from a common ancestor, in part through the process of natural selection, is as factual as anything known to science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 sorry for the delay.. been sick 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    So you don't think the evolutionary overview "skews" the data recorded? I see alot of evolutionary research and proofs as a "self fullfilling prophecy" if you'll pardon the sociology reference. People tend to see things in a way that backs their own belief structure. When science starts acting funny... search the history of the scientist. In that you will find as much of the reason for his conclusions as in the data he observed.

    Case in point. Any of a million contradictory case studies done. Funny how they almost always seem to support the ideas of the one funding the study.
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Thats why accepted science is peer reviewed and independently verified constantly. Of course even this doesn't ensure absolute impartiality , so you should attempt to reproduce the findings in some way yourself.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    obviously, if you automatically assume every scientist to be a cheat and a liar, there's not much point talking about evidence - you clearly have made up your mind that there is no reliable evidence, and that defeats the object of any further discussion
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    Indeed.

    It is the aforementioned ovservable and repeatable issue that I feel has been lost in modern science and the conclusion of "this is fact" has been sullied and abused.

    Adaption was mentioned earlier through an article that was posted (I actually read most of it : P) All of the examples I have been given or shown are evidence of Genetics and heredity. Which evolutionists say is the small scale version of evolution. Creationists say that its a small scale system God put in place to protect life. (mircoevolution vs adaption). The hang ups I see with the scientific research and backing in evolution come back to the same basic hangups. (there are many and if you'll be patient with me i'll mention them one at a time so people can respond)

    Question.
    If the geologic history (column) were shown to not have formed as believed by the popular scientific community would evolutional theory be changed or discarded?

    I have a hard time with the idea of the GH as being a history because:
    If...
    The GH is globally present.
    The GH is a time lapse record of all development.
    The GH took billions (or whatever) of years to build up and trap the fossils...

    Then...
    Where did the dirt come from?
    If it came from space we could test it and know. If It built up on one side of the planet then the other side would have a dip in it.



    Further... how could a large fossil, T-rex hip for example, survive weathering long enough for the earth to build up and bury it?
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    please don't get defensive.

    I'm not saying anyone is less than genuine. I'm simply trying to point out that a flawed system can and probably will produce flawed answers.

    I'm not trying to say the system is useless. Scientific method is good. But if we are significantly wrong there is alot of indocrination that has to be overcome.

    That statement can be applied to religion and to science because in the end we are talking about people. We are alll basically the same.

    PS (this is in resoponse to MarnixR's post above. My previous post was made before I saw her post and was in response to GhostofMaxwell)
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    You are mixing scientists with laymen.

    Science that isn't up to scratch anymore is constantly changed in light of new findings! The entire job of a scientist is to advance(and therefore correct) the science of his/her predecessors! ...............What do you think scientists do all day? Go around patting as many of their colleagues on the back for 10 hours with an hour break for lunch?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    I would love to intern with some of the worlds leading scientists to see how they really spend there time and how they reach their conclusions.

    I'm not trying to attack scientists or science. Where there is a defiency or problem people resist change. I am feeling more resistence and frustration here than I do with creationists. I am saying that some of the foundation blocks of evolution don't seem to add up. Like the geologic history question I posed (page 1 of the thread) I feel like there are questions and arguements that are simply dismissed because of who presents them. Poor foundations make wobbly houses. Which brings us back to the original post.

    The signature was making light (I love puns) of a person who was attempting to question and rethink a system that is assumed to be factual and, by the way it has been discussed here, seemingly beyond questionability.

    I am simply asking people to use logic and common sense, to get past what they might or might not believe in and take a fresh look at a situation, theory or hypothesis to reevaluate and test the "scientific facts" that we lean so heavily on.

    If we are wrong about some major stuff we have everything to gain by finding the right answer.

    Please share your thoughts about the geologic history(column) questions and if you will indulge me I would like to know your opionions on a few other topics as well.

    Thanks
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    haven't you considered that your science is what is at fault not scientists?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    I have. But lets get past the Who's right who's wrong and lets actually discuss the issues.

    I openly admit that I could be wrong. Lets find the right answer together
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    I openly admit that you could be wrong also. :-D
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    now that we agree about something lets discuss and not limit ourselves to jokes (which i appreciate): P

    Any valid info about the geologic column question?
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    What exactly is your problem with the geologic column? "Where did the dirt come from" doesn't really seem like much of an objection, maybe you could clear it up for me.
    Maybe Ophiolite or someone else with a deeper knowledge in geology can help you out though (not that you're truly interested in learning about nonfiction geology)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    sure : P

    The geologic history supposes that over an extended period of time the layers of dirt built up and covered the fossils and other things. So if you dig to the cambrian layer you see the dirt that covered and buried the fossils. The dirt had to come from somewhere. If the Geologic column is globally present where did the dirt come from. Organic soil doesn't become inorganic. Calcium doesn't turn into carbon. How can we explain the "build up" of soil that we say is responsible for the forming of the soil.

    Proposed answers:
    1. I already mentioned the biologic to nonbiologic transfer but we know that without something very substantial happening elements don't simply change what they are.

    2. River Runoff - sedimentation. Again its globally present and evident on mountains and in valleys. Basically in places that rivers couldn't have deposited anything. The river sedimentation idea isn't really a good hypothesis because the river would have to deposit the debris globally and fairly uniformly.

    3. Space dust. The eventual accumulation of dust entering the atmosphere isn't really a good hypothesis because of the consistence within a layer and the variation between the layers.

    I can't find an answer that fits the evolutionary timeframe and is plausable.

    Also, if it took 100,000 years for a couple feet of soil to develop and cover an area how could the top of a fossil that is 3 feet tall survive basic weathering. half of it would be sticking out of the soil for 50,000 years? Then it would survive storms and chemical process's? the whole bone should probably be fossilised all at the same pace and duration. The gradual buildup of the surface of the earth doesn't allow for that.


    just some thoughts...
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    remember that geology is a bit like the army : long moments of boredom alternated with short bouts of panic

    most of the time sedimentation and erosion proceeds at a leisurely pace, but there are times (e.g. flash floods, storms or other catastrophes) when several feet of sediment are deposited in the blink of an eye or that whole mountain sides collapse equally fast

    also remember that sedimentation / erosion doesn't happen uniformly across the whole earth, and that the geologic column is never represented in full in any geographic location - the geologic column you see in textbooks is the result of adding separate bits of local geologic columns together
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    I'm doing some research. Can anyone tell me the thickness of the layers of the geologic column? All the photos and reasearch I can find to read up on has them posted in terms of time and not actual physical depth.

    Thanks

    PS. I really like that army illustration... very cool.
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    ok. So if sedimentation happens in spurts and relatively quickly separated by times of "boredom" when not much is happening, how can the layers be so defined. Wouldn't each layer need to be deposited at the same time of the same material? If it wasn't wouldn't there be a visable gap in the layer or a non-uniformity of types of material within a layer? From what I can find the different strata are composed of a single material (sandstone, limestone, etc) and not mixed with other types of rock except that of debris as in fossils or anomalies (rocks and other randem items within the layer). How did those layers acutally form?
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    thicknesses of deposits vary - if you look at an exposure in a rockface (e.g in a quarry or at the coast) you sometimes can see a distinctly coloured band that you can trace for quite some distance but which for no obvious reason peters out

    think what happens with a river delta : nearest to the point where the river enters the sea the sediments are usually thickest, and as you move farther into the sea the amount of material suspended in the water column diminishes (corresponding with smaller amounts of material being deposited) until at some point no more deposition takes place

    now if this section turns into rock, half of which gets eroded away by the sea, you'll see a cross-section displaying several bands (showing the variation of the water flow in the river, usually depending on the season), all of which become thinner in one direction

    because sedimentation is usually a localised phenomenon depending on a whole range of environmental parameters, there is no way to state the actual thickness for the geological column as a whole - you only can do that for localised sections
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    ok, so the previous post was in answer to your earlier post, here i'm going to try and deal with the next one

    i'm not saying that nothing at all happens between times of major upheaval
    however, when an upheaval such as a flash flood happens, you can indeed recognise it in the nature of the deposits - at a place not far from where i live, at Ogmore-by-Sea, there is evidence of river channels filled with a variety of rounded rocks ranging from large pebbles to boulders, clear evidence of flash floods in what was during the Triassic a desert area

    on the other hand, when i say that not much happens, don't forget that even then large thicknesses of deposits can occur given enough time when the deposits remain undisturbed - think of the cliffs of Dover : it's very hard to see much layering in the rocks, indicating that they were formed by gentle deposition of coccoliths over millions of years
    it's just that for human beings these lengths of time fall outside our everyday experience and we just fail to imagine how a gentle rain of tiny organisms can build up to the size of substantial cliffs
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    The geologic history supposes that over an extended period of time the layers of dirt built up and covered the fossils and other things.
    Lets start at the beginning. I'd like to call these sediments, not dirt. There are various kinds of sediments whose character varies based upon their provenance (where they came from), transportation (how they were moved), mode of deposition. (Some rocks are gently deposited by slowly moving rivers, other may be dropped by turbidity currents (greywackes in submarine avalanches; tuffs in pyroclastic flows)) and their subsequent history (diagenesis).

    Broadly speaking we have clastic rocks, which in decreasing size order of the dominant particles include
    conglomerates
    sandstones
    silststones
    mudstones
    claystones (shales)

    We have evaporites which include
    salt
    gypsum
    some carbonates

    Carbonates in general
    some of which are bioclastic - formed from fossil organisms
    or chemically deposited via evaporation.

    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    So if you dig to the cambrian layer you see the dirt that covered and buried the fossils. The dirt had to come from somewhere. ...
    Yes it did. It came, in the case of clastics, from erosion of the hills and mountains present in the Cambrian terrain. In the case of evaporites it came from the materials in solution, derived from erosion of the Cambrian terrane.
    If the Geologic column is globally present where did the dirt come from.
    Not sure why you would think that the entire geologic column is present everywhere. It most certainly isn't. Such a basic miscomprehension of simple geology helps me to understand why you are so confused.
    Organic soil doesn't become inorganic.
    Actually it can do, but I fail to see how that is relevant.
    Calcium doesn't turn into carbon.
    No, but calcium can be extracted from or introduced into sediments by the percolation of water. such movement is commonplace and is part of the process of diagenesis by which sediments are converted into rocks (and by which carbon in organic 'soils' is converted into coal or oil or gas).
    2. River Runoff - sedimentation. Again its globally present and evident on mountains and in valleys. Basically in places that rivers couldn't have deposited anything. The river sedimentation idea isn't really a good hypothesis because the river would have to deposit the debris globally and fairly uniformly.
    I really don't mean to be rude, but the depth of your ignorance is truly astounding. I hope you understand I am doing my best to educate you somewhat, but you are so far away from even a simple understanding I am not too hopeful. I'm taking time here - my intentions are sincere, but it seems you haven't even bothered to read some of the basic material available on the web. Just a couple of points on the latest quote.
    a) We live on a very active planet. Deep sea sediments are carried, by tectonic activity, to the highest mountains. The rivers did not deposit the sediments up the mountain, but down in the dpeths, or in the desert, or on the flood plain of the river.
    b) Why on Earth (excuse the pun) would rivers have to deposit the rocks uniformly? they are not found to be uniform? why would you expect them to be deposited uniformly. If one thing charactersises most sedimentation it is its non-uniform character. Why would you expect the sediments to be deposited globally. They can't be. At any one time we have areas where erosion is active, and other where deposition is active, and these areaas change over time.
    Also, if it took 100,000 years for a couple feet of soil to develop and cover an area how could the top of a fossil that is 3 feet tall survive basic weathering. half of it would be sticking out of the soil for 50,000 years?
    Where are you generating this nonsesne from? In flood conditions you can deposit several feet of sediment in a few hours. Please stop talking about soils and dirt. There are very few preserved soils in the geologic record. Soils do take a long time to form. The same is not true of sediments. I have no idea where you got such an idea, but it certainly was not from reading any decent textbook on the subject.

    I do recommend you go out and purchase today The Map That Changed The World, by Simon Winchester. Not only is this a delightful story about the birth of geology, but it will clear up most of your misunderstandings in a far more entertaining (and certainly a much more polite) way than I can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    ophiolite, as usual your clarity of expression puts my meagre attempts well in the shade 8)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    Thank you for your patience Opie : )

    I'm going to order that book as soon as I finish this post. I don't have all of the understanding I desire and that is part of the reason I am here. I have a desire to be correct but not a need to be. In that I want to find my mistakes. I simply ask that everyone else leave room for that same attitude.

    I am cleaning out my closet in a Descates-ian fashion. Weeding thru all the stuff that was ever spoken to me by teachers, professors, and religious persons. So I thank you for your time and sharing the knowledge you have gained

    I think maybe you meant to be a little rude, but thats ok. Even when you are laughing at me I am laughing with you. I'm ok with being wrong and not knowing because I am on a journey for the truth. Further I am not asking simply for you to educate me. Rather to encourage through discussion the critical understanding of specific topics.

    SO... if you'll indulge me

    I have a basic understanding of plate tectonics. Mountains are formed either by sheering and subduction or by buldging when land masses are forced together. How could deep sea sediment be carried to a mountain top?

    Also, since it will probably come up anyway. If there was a global "Ice age" wouldn't we reach a type of zero point with temperature at which the earth could not recover? With the reflective proporties of the ice and snow, when they reach a certain percent coverage of the globe, wouldn't insolation cease to produce enough heat energy to melt the ice. Thus making the "ice age" an impossibility. (since we're not still in an ice age) I have seen some research done in this area with computer modeling of weather systems and whatnot and the models confirmed even the "little ice age" that many scientists adopt when rejecting the older "earth of ice and snow" hypothesis would be very close to or over the point of no return.

    What do you think? Was there an ice age of somekind? How did we recover if there was? Since the ice age is the culprit for some of the geological formations and patterns we see in the "geologic column" if it didn't happen how can those things be explained?

    Sorry for the seeming subject change. I'm gonna try to read that book and do more research before I deal with the column directly again so I don't waste your time.

    Thanks marnixR and opie : P I appreciate you.
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    If there was a global "Ice age" wouldn't we reach a type of zero point with temperature at which the earth could not recover? With the reflective proporties of the ice and snow, when they reach a certain percent coverage of the globe, wouldn't insolation cease to produce enough heat energy to melt the ice. Thus making the "ice age" an impossibility. (since we're not still in an ice age) I have seen some research done in this area with computer modeling of weather systems and whatnot and the models confirmed even the "little ice age" that many scientists adopt when rejecting the older "earth of ice and snow" hypothesis would be very close to or over the point of no return.
    are you referring to the "snowball earth" hypothesis, where the earth is claimed to have been completely iced over around 800 million years ago ? tbh the evidence, although enticing, is not fully convincing and rests on the traces of glaciers in rocks that according to their magnetic signature were situated near the equator

    if true, however, the theory is that the earth's heat from plate tectonics built up under the ice while at the same volcanic activity increased the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere - this is then claimed to have been sufficient to reverse the full glaciation

    somehow i'm a bit doubtful of this scenario - even if the continents had been fully glaciated, it'd take some ice age to cover all of the ocean with an ice crust
    somehow i can't convince myself that conditions would have been this extreme
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    I think maybe you meant to be a little rude, but thats ok. .
    Absolutely. Experience has suggested to me that if I am rude in these situations it allows me to distinguish between peole with an agenda and a closed mind (who therefore are not worth any effort) and those who are genuinely intersted, though perhaps uninformed. You clearly fit into the second category and therfore I am happy to offer what small help I can to progress your understanding - for it will also, doubtless, help progress my own.
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    How could deep sea sediment be carried to a mountain top?
    The actions of plate tectonics, while slow, are extremely powerful. (Think of the energy released in the quake that generated the Asian tsunami a couple of years ago.) while plate tectonic movements are fundamentally horizontal, some of thie movement is translated into the vertical. It is therefore not surprising that rocks whihc have been carried hundreds, or thousands of kilometres horizontally should also be raised five or ten kilometres vertically.
    In particular deep sea sediments (such as black shales and cherts) and their associated volcanic (pillow lavas) and intrusive rocks
    (serpentinites, harzburgites) are 'scraped' onto the continetal crust when oceanic crust is subducted below continental crust. [quote=couldbewrong]wn as ophiolites. 8) )
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    Also, since it will probably come up anyway. If there was a global "Ice age" wouldn't we reach a type of zero point with temperature at which the earth could not recover?.
    This is an excellent point and is one which has been considered, investigated and modelled by several researchers in the past. Marnix has partly addressed this issue in his last post. The consensus is that other factors will counter the reflection issue you mentioned - most notably carbon dioxide emissions from volcanoes. If you believe James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, then the entire biosphere-hydrsophere-atmosphere-lithosphere of the Earth act like a single organism, maintaining the planet in a 'livable' condition via various feedback mechanisms.
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    I have seen some research done in this area with computer modeling of weather systems and whatnot and the models confirmed even the "little ice age" that many scientists adopt when rejecting the older "earth of ice and snow" hypothesis would be very close to or over the point of no return. .
    I would be interested in the references for these, since this certainly runs counter to anything I can recall reading.
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    What do you think? Was there an ice age of somekind? How did we recover if there was? Since the ice age is the culprit for some of the geological formations and patterns we see in the "geologic column" if it didn't happen how can those things be explained?.
    I have absolutely no doubt there was an ice age. We are still in it. We may call this an interglacial, but the extensive ice at both poles and in the higher mountains is distincitive and atypical of the Earth's normal condition.
    The geologic features and sediments left behind by retreating glaciers - glaciers we have seen retreat - matched against other 'recent' deposits, confirms that the ice was once much more extensive than it is now. Therefore the ice age was real, we are still in it, and the existence of lithified sediments with all the characteristics of the glacial sediments we see today, meanas that ice ages also occured in the distant past.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    Marin said, "if true, however, the theory is that the earth's heat from plate tectonics built up under the ice while at the same volcanic activity increased the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere - this is then claimed to have been sufficient to reverse the full glaciation,"

    If that were true wouldn't it have put the brakes on bioevolutionary development? Some dormant plantlife may have survived the scenario but animal life would not have had a chance. Mircroorganisms dependent on oxygen would have died from the CO2 rich environment or from the extreme cold.



    Opie said,
    "couldbewrong wrote:
    I have seen some research done in this area with computer modeling of weather systems and whatnot and the models confirmed even the "little ice age" that many scientists adopt when rejecting the older "earth of ice and snow" hypothesis would be very close to or over the point of no return. .
    I would be interested in the references for these, since this certainly runs counter to anything I can recall reading."

    I'll try to find the show. I saw a special on it online (recorded tv from some channel maybe a brittish program. I'm not sure) I did some research on the scientists and the theory but it has been a year or so and alot of study has been done since then (and 2 computer system failures). I'm sorry I don't have the reference material on hand.


    Opie said,"We are still in it. We may call this an interglacial, but the extensive ice at both poles and in the higher mountains is distincitive and atypical of the Earth's normal condition"

    (on a side note) is there a way to put pictures in these posts? I'm fairly new to message boards.

    Thanks again for your time everyone : )

    What would you say earth's "normal" condition is?
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Theoretically we can only see how old the universe is when the see light furthest away from ourselves that is why we can see a ball of our universe as light beyond has taken too long, but if we are still waiting for the light to get here, then the only way we can see beyond that is because perhaps some graviational effects or something have catapulted the speed of a photon of light to our percieved observation of faster than light (like frame dragging). Also the universe may have expanded before any rules of the physics we see exist-for example even in the first microseconds of the universe all the fundemental forces of the universe were one THEORETICALLY, so it is possilbe that mass, energy or whatever existed back then could go really far, really quick and by the time that electromagnetism split of alone so that photons could be created, the galaxies could be farther away than 6000 years and we still see them because of the variying of the forces over what may or may not have been ordinary spacetime back then. That is one of my theories anyway.



    PS,

    [quote="Ophiolite"]
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    I think maybe you meant to be a little rude, but thats ok. .
    Absolutely. Experience has suggested to me that if I am rude in these situations it allows me to distinguish between peole with an agenda and a closed mind (who therefore are not worth any effort) and those who are genuinely intersted, though perhaps uninformed te]

    Here ophiolite said that people with closed minds aren't worth any effort, but he himself on religious debate is closed minded about God's existence and has therfore in retrosepct given this forum category has voided himself of contributing logically due to contradicting himself. Sorry if I'm being rude there but it allows me to distinguish between people with an agenda and a closed mind.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Theoretically we can only see how old the universe is when the see light furthest away from ourselves that is why we can see a ball of our universe as light beyond has taken too long, but if we are still waiting for the light to get here, then the only way we can see beyond that is because perhaps some graviational effects or something have catapulted the speed of a photon of light to our percieved observation of faster than light (like frame dragging). Also the universe may have expanded before any rules of the physics we see exist-for example even in the first microseconds of the universe all the fundemental forces of the universe were one THEORETICALLY, so it is possilbe that mass, energy or whatever existed back then could go really far, really quick and by the time that electromagnetism split of alone so that photons could be created, the galaxies could be farther away than 6000 years and we still see them because of the variying of the forces over what may or may not have been ordinary spacetime back then. That is one of my theories anyway.



    PS,


    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    I think maybe you meant to be a little rude, but thats ok. .
    Absolutely. Experience has suggested to me that if I am rude in these situations it allows me to distinguish between peole with an agenda and a closed mind (who therefore are not worth any effort)
    Here ophiolite said that people with closed minds aren't worth any effort, but he himself on religious debate is closed minded about God's existence and has therfore in retrosepct given this forum category has voided himself of contributing logically due to contradicting himself. Sorry if I'm being rude there but it allows me to distinguish between people with an agenda and a closed mind.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Here ophiolite said that people with closed minds aren't worth any effort, but he himself on religious debate is closed minded about God's existence .....
    This is off topic, but I do wish to clarify. I am wholly open-minded about God's existence. I merely see no clear evidence for her existence, no requirement from observation to postulate her existence, and suspect that it may not be possible to determine either way whether she exists or not. I am thus, as I have always declared myself to be, a devout agnostic. I await any evidence, form either side of the argument, to change my mind - so far it has not been forthcoming. svwillmer - please resopond ot this - if you wish to - within the relevant thread, so as not to derail this one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    If that were true wouldn't it have put the brakes on bioevolutionary development? Some dormant plantlife may have survived the scenario but animal life would not have had a chance. Mircroorganisms dependent on oxygen would have died from the CO2 rich environment or from the extreme cold.
    as far as i'm aware there was a crash in organic diversity near the time, but presumably life is more resilient than we tend to give it credit for - it's only us humans that are soft
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    I'm still looking for the research on the weather models for different "ice age" scenarios. sorry for the delay.

    Question. With such a small window of observation as we have in the evolutionary model, how can we speak with certainty that x rock took y amount of years to form, when we can't witness it ourselves or through the recorded history of mankind? In this light aren't all scientific models of cosmology and terestrial evolution supposition?

    I understand that we have to have a starting point and a system or structure for logical scientific research (I'm not on the science is evil kick), but when you begin an experiment with so much supposition even if the result backs your hypothesis if the hypothesis is unfounded did you still find an evident truth or did you simply prove that in a specific scenario this specific result will occure?

    I am reasearching but I'm still finding stuff I don't believe it's possible to know with certainty.

    For example wikipedia states:

    "Pre-matter soup
    Until recently, the first hundredth of a second after the Big Bang was a mystery, leaving Weinberg and others unable to describe exactly what the universe would have been like during this period. New experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider in Brookhaven National Laboratory have provided physicists with a glimpse through this curtain of high energy, so they can directly observe the sorts of behavior that might have been taking place in this time frame.[9]

    At these energies, the quarks that comprise protons and neutrons (ups and downs) were not yet joined together, and a dense, superhot mix of quarks and gluons, with some electrons thrown in, was all that could exist in the microseconds before it cooled enough to form into the sort of matter particles we observe today.[10]"

    How can that information (if the big bang actually happened) ever really be scientifically known? How can it ever be actually spoken of as scientific fact when it is beyond the realm of observation? We can do experiments as the people mentioned above did, but how did they come to the conclusion that it was the right experiment?

    How can they possible "know" what happened a microsecond after the supposed beggining of the rapid expansion of matter into the area that we would come to speak of as "space". To the same end how can we ever really know what is beyond "space". Scientifically we can't really know. can we?
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    Question. With such a small window of observation as we have in the evolutionary model, how can we speak with certainty that x rock took y amount of years to form, when we can't witness it ourselves or through the recorded history of mankind? In this light aren't all scientific models of cosmology and terestrial evolution supposition?
    surely you're aware of the fact that igneous rocks can be dated through a number of radioactive decay series (e.g. K-Ar, U-Pb etc)

    combine this with the principle of superposition (under normal conditions, i.e. when not severly disturbed through mountain-building, younger rocks lie on top of older ones) and you can estimate with some degree of accuracy how old sedimentary rocks sandwiched between igneous rocks are

    combine this further with the correlation of rocks of similar age using zone fossils (fossils of organisms that are widespread but at the same time restricted to a small portion of geological time) and you get an interlinked system of age determination that can be applied in most parts of the world for at least the last 500 million years

    think of it as a detective story - the detective was not at the scene of the crime when it happened, but any miss marple or sherlock holmes can fit the available evidence together to come up with a fair estimate of what is likely to have happened

    because many independent pieces of evidence usually agree with one another and all tell the same story, a geologist can in many cases be reasonably confident of the age of rocks within a few percentage of their actual age
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    marin said, "surely you're aware of the fact that igneous rocks can be dated through a number of radioactive decay series (e.g. K-Ar, U-Pb etc)"

    Don't those systems of measurement begin with the assumption that the sample being tested began at a "full" state? Being complete and in the best condition it could be in? These methods in geology don't seem to allow for possiblity that a (for example) uranium isotope would naturally occure next to lead by any other way than Radioactive decay.

    We get into a loop here with the fossil record,

    Marnix
    "combine this further with the correlation of rocks of similar age using zone fossils (fossils of organisms that are widespread but at the same time restricted to a small portion of geological time) and you get an interlinked system of age determination that can be applied in most parts of the world for at least the last 500 million years

    These ideas were developed at roughly the same time and the time scaled were adjusted through deduction to agree with each other. So the rocks are x old because the fossils are x old. The fossils are Y old because the rocks are Y old.

    RadioCarbon Dating is assumed to be only accurate to 60,000 years ago. how can we date strata using this when most strata are supposed to be older than this. Then we get into calibration and calibration curves that make assumptions about the condition of the atmosphere when the sample was deposited and the credibility or degree of accuracy is thown out the window.

    our experiments are tainted.

    IF a and IF b and if c then D

    you can make an equation balance but if a and b are wrong then D is also wrong even if c is valid info.
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Is it me? or has this thread gone grossly off topic? :P

    EDIT: Ah maybe not. When I saw mention of superposition I assumed you were talking quantum mechanics, is all.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    sorry, but you keep bringing up all these tired creationist objections that have already been countered innumerable times

    1. different radioactive series and other isotope ratios can be used as cross-reference to one another : e.g. in minerals free uranium lead occurs in 2 variants Pb-204 and Pb-207 in a ratio that is constant - uranium containing rocks will see uranium-235 decay to Pb-207, which at the same time will increase the Pb-207/Pb-204 ratio over and above what we could call the primordial ratio - so you have a baseline from which to start and any change from that baseline is indicative of the age of that rock
    2. talking about the limitation of 60,000 years for radiocarbon dating is neither here nor there : there are loads of other methods with longer (and sometimes far longer half-lives (U-235 to Pb-207 713 million years, K-40 to Ar-40 1.26 billion years, Rb-87 to Sr-87 47 billion years) and the important thing is that although each method may have its drawbacks and pitfalls, they tend to agree with one another

    These ideas were developed at roughly the same time and the time scaled were adjusted through deduction to agree with each other. So the rocks are x old because the fossils are x old. The fossils are Y old because the rocks are Y old.
    not so : the relative age of rocks is deduced from their superposition, with the oldest at the bottom and the youngest near the top - fossils only enter the picture because they make it easier to correlate rocks of the same age across the globe
    besides the absolute dating introduced by the radioactive series (and which came on the scene more than a century after William Smith had first formulated the principle of superposition) agreed with the conclusions drawn up over the intervening century - usually when new evidence which was not originally predicted by a scientific theory agrees with that theory, this is seen as strong corroboration of the theory's findings

    the strength of geology as we know is that it is not based on one source of information, but that various independent strands of evidence are available for cross-checking, and on the whole they agree with one another, not because someone has frigged the data to make them agree, but because they just happen to agree
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    thanks marnix : P

    Checkin some more stuff : P

    Marrnix said,
    "sorry, but you keep bringing up all these tired creationist objections that have already been countered innumerable times"

    I Haven't been in the debate that long. Is there a resource where I can see the "tired creatioinist objections" and their counterparts? that way I don't bother you with them?

    Any comment specifically on the idea of Unknowable/Undiscoverable information?

    Edit: Cause you have to admit... creationists and evolutionist kinda go off the deep end at times
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    Any comment specifically on the idea of Unknowable/Undiscoverable information?
    sorry, you lost me there - do you mean things that we're not able / allowed to discover ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    I Haven't been in the debate that long. Is there a resource where I can see the "tired creatioinist objections" and their counterparts? that way I don't bother you with them?
    Here's a place to start, couldbewrong. Straight from the creationists mouth:
    Arguments even AIG says not to use

    In general you need to be very, very careful about which creationist arguments you choose to use. Whether or not God exists, whether or not most creationists have good intentions, and whether or not evolution is 100% accurate or a load of hogwash the sad truth is that many creationist arguments are not only incorrect, but blatently dishonest. You MUST do some research yourself before accepting creationist arguments at face value.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    In general you need to be very, very careful about which creationist arguments you choose to use. Whether or not God exists, whether or not most creationists have good intentions, and whether or not evolution is 100% accurate or a load of hogwash the sad truth is that many creationist arguments are not only incorrect, but blatently dishonest. You MUST do some research yourself before accepting creationist arguments at face value.
    a case in point is kent hovind and his followers. i have dealt with many religious people who simply want to find answers to the fact that science more often than not state something wholely different than what their religions told them. and then people like kent hovind come along, passionately making absurd and conjured accusations against science. i applaud couldbewrong for trying to understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    Is there a resource where I can see the "tired creatioinist objections" and their counterparts?
    straight from RichardDawkins.net : Robust list of creationist 'arguments' + responses

    + if you ever can find "Science and Creationism" edited by Ashley Montagu (Oxford University Press 1984), it contains several rebuttals of the creationism of the early 1980s (which is still very much alive at grassroots level), and was the result of the courtcase against Arkansas' infamous Act590 - contains contributions from famous names such as Stephen Jay Gould, Roger Lewin, Isaac Asimov, Beverly Halstead and Michael Ruse
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    Question. With such a small window of observation as we have in the evolutionary model, how can we speak with certainty that x rock took y amount of years to form, when we can't witness it ourselves or through the recorded history of mankind?
    A good question - and the answer lies at the heart of observational geology. (And geology is an observational science par excellence.)
    James Hutton, one of the fathers of geology, said over two hundred years ago - The present is the key to the past.

    The mechanisms we see at work today - weathering, erosion, transportation, deposition, diagenesis, vulcanism, etc - were at work in the past. We can determine how fast different kinds of sediments are deposited today and then make the decution that rocks made of these sediments were deposited at similar rates in the past.

    Most scientists conduct experiments in the laboratory, or in the field, then interepret the results of their experiments. What makes geology so fascinating is that nature has conducted a series of vast experiments, leaving their results all around us. The geologist must then interpret these results, and Huttons dictum is one of the keys to doing this successfully.

    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    In this light aren't all scientific models of cosmology and terestrial evolution supposition?
    All scientific hypotheses and theories are always provisional - its just that some, like plate tectonics or evolution, have been so well validated that they are as close to absolute certain as science ever gets.
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    I am reasearching but I'm still finding stuff I don't believe it's possible to know with certainty.
    As above.
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    How can that information (if the big bang actually happened) ever really be scientifically known? How can it ever be actually spoken of as scientific fact when it is beyond the realm of observation?
    It is not beyond the realm of observation. Theorists argue the predicted and detected background radiation is the remant of the big bang. Rather like hearing the Hiroshima bomb go off and detecting its residual radiation, but not actually seeing the mushroom cloud, or being subjected to black rain.
    As noted above scientific fact is not the same as 'normal' fact, because scientific fact can always be overturned by a single observation. What makes facts like the Big Bang, evolution and plate tectonics so solid, is tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of observations have been made that validate these facts and none have invalidated them. (Note - personally I think the Big Bang is a faulty interpretation of the observations, but since I don't have a viable, falsifiable alternative, I shall generalyy keep my mouth shut on the subject.)
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    How can they possible "know" what happened a microsecond after the supposed beggining of the rapid expansion of matter into the area that we would come to speak of as "space". To the same end how can we ever really know what is beyond "space". Scientifically we can't really know. can we?
    At present we tend to think not. Science acknowledges that only certain topics and questions are valid for it to investigate. The boundaries change as our instrumentation develops.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    Is there a resource where I can see the "tired creatioinist objections" and their counterparts?
    straight from RichardDawkins.net : Robust list of creationist 'arguments' + responses

    + if you ever can find "Science and Creationism" edited by Ashley Montagu (Oxford University Press 1984), it contains several rebuttals of the creationism of the early 1980s (which is still very much alive at grassroots level), and was the result of the courtcase against Arkansas' infamous Act590 - contains contributions from famous names such as Stephen Jay Gould, Roger Lewin, Isaac Asimov, Beverly Halstead and Michael Ruse
    Nice! Now I can pwn creationists easily! :wink:
    Thanks for that! :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    Sociology...

    I am studying the 2 sites linked above at the same time and in them I see the same basic pattern in them both.

    Both groups seem to be communicating, "You can't satisfy every question I have with your hypothesis, theory, or point of view so everything you have to offer to this conversation is useless, inaccurate, and quite simply, a bother to the world. You should be ashamed of yourself."

    It seems that people want to disagree with people simply because of their viewpoint and as a result they "throw out the baby with the bathwater". Any valid information or researchable points are automatically dismissed by the other party simply because of who suggested them.

    I do still have some questions that haven't been directly addressed by either site. I'll post those as soon as i finish processing the hundreds of arguements I just read.

    As far as unknowable/undiscoverable information I just mean where do we draw the line? Websites, television shows, periodicals, teachers, professors all (by all i'm not being absolute I mean of my experience I have witnessed many of each of these doing this) teach information as utter fact when often times it isn't truly knowable information. They speak of things we think happened, of things that may even be supported by a few or many experiments. However, as was mentioned earlier in this discussion, no matter how much support you have for a theory one counter observation can disprove any theory.. Without direct observation can we ever really be 100% certain of what occured? (edit: I bring this up again because some people tend to refuse to see the evidence that should bring a theory or hypothesis into question)

    Jesus is a good example. Some people say he never existed. Some say, in this instance, because I didn't directly observe him he may not have existed, inspite of all the evidence, texts, testimonies etc. When we apply that same idea to science having seen the actual event with our own eyes seems to becomes less vital. Some say they don't give any respect/credibility to the medium in which the history of Jesus was recorded because the information was recorded by biased people with an agenda. Creationists feel the same way about alot of evolutionary research. Fair Christian Scientists don't argue that evidence exists, they simply disagree about what the evidence points too.

    This same pattern is prevelant within religion. Religions disagree, bicker, fight and bomb each other. I don't doubt for a second that some kind of supernatural activity is going on in the world we live in. People say and angel spoke to them, god spoke to them, the devil spoke to them. The problem comes when people think that their own evaluation of a situation is absolute. If there is a god beyond error that in no way translates to us being flawless. If there is a devil, wouldn't he really try to lead us away from a god that he hates? Wouldn't he try to appear as the god people want to serve in an effort to mislead them? Isn't that logical? Sometimes bumper sticker logic is... well... it is... but anyway. I saw one that said something like, satans best trick was convincing people he doesn't exist. If he does exist isn't it reasonable to say that he could influence the realms of science and religion to keep us from agreeing and finding the truth?

    Just some thoughts.

    I'll be back with some stuff i need help with if you all will continue to indulge me.
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    "You can't satisfy every question I have with your hypothesis, theory, or point of view so everything you have to offer to this conversation is useless, inaccurate, and quite simply, a bother to the world. You should be ashamed of yourself."
    just to make sure i understand you correctly : who directs this statement at whom ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    I have witnessed creationists directing this attitude toward evolutionists and visa versa. What I am trying to point out is a common behavior between people and groups of people with differing opinions/ideas/etc. We can't really change groups of people but we can focus on ourselves to get past this behavior.

    Once we open ourselves up to at least honestly evaluate another persons ideas/experiences without instant distain we will be a position to learn. This isn't for the lazy or for the feint of heart. I know I have seen the same thing many times before I truly undestood that thing. If we draw a conclusion and fail to reevaluate that conclusion when it is questioned than we fail to act scientifically. You may very well come to the same conclusion but then again you may not. But if you don't give any other information a chance then you are closed off to growth and learning. At that point science and religion become stagnant, useless, and ineffective.
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    As far as unknowable/undiscoverable information I just mean where do we draw the line?
    Science has no problem drawing this line - and moving it as appropriate. Science only investigates those phenomena which are knowable and discoverable. It avoids those which are not, or whose 'discoverability' is in doubt.
    Without direct observation can we ever really be 100% certain of what occured?
    You seem to be hung up on this direct observation. In many instances indirect observation will be more reliable and relevant than direct observation. And yes, while we can never be 100% certain - that is an underlying principle of modern science - we can approach that 100% so closely that to doubt the 'fact' in any practical way would be extremely foolish.
    Jesus is a good example. Some people say he never existed. Some say, in this instance, because I didn't directly observe him he may not have existed, inspite of all the evidence, texts, testimonies etc.
    Those who deny the historical reality of Jesus do so because only biblical and related documents refer to him. Their is no independent corroboration of his existence - no letters from a Roman legionaire to his family talking about this local trouble maker Jesus that he nailed to a cross last week, for example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    I also said, " I bring this up again because some people tend to refuse to see the evidence that should bring a theory or hypothesis into question.

    Don't creationitsts and evolutionists tend to see information they believe is true in the light of their own belief structure?

    (sorry that this discussion is boardering on pointlessness)

    I just hope that in the face of other ideas we will all allow ourselves to question what we beleive to be true and factual, and seek the truth instead of baricading ourselves in behind a wall of facts in which the morter is our current (possibly wrong) understanding of the evidence.

    PS... how do you do the cool looking quote thingy?!?!
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    the problem with creationists is that they have very little evidence to agree or disagree with - their main tactic is to attack what they perceive as weaknesses in evolution theory, but as far as their own evidence goes, that remains restricted to "it's in the book" (which in scientific terms is not much of a tenable situation)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    still doing some research... had a long weekend in Nashville TN but back to grind. I have some questions I'm working on still. Thanks for your patience all
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    Don't creationitsts and evolutionists tend to see information they believe is true in the light of their own belief structure?
    Absolutely true, but here is the contrast as I see it.
    I would never, ever, under threat of sudden, violent death take the word of any scientist about anything. I will, however, often take the word of a single scientist, reporting his findings in a peer reviewed journal, as being provisionally true.
    As further scientists repeat his experiments and confirm his findings; as other scientists test the predictions made by his hypothesis and find them supported; then I become increasingly confident in that hypothesis. Because, and only because, it is borne out by the facts.
    My faith is not in scientists, but in the scientific system, which says 'we may be wrong'.

    In contrast, creaitonist's guiding light is the Bible. Since this is, they say, the Word of God, it is true. If the evidence from the world contradicts it, then the evidence must be wrong. And I have no wish to place my faith in a hodge podge, no matter how elegant, of poetry, myth, legal jargon, folk tales and methaphor - especially when a literal interpretation of its contents runs counter to millions of independent, yet interelated observations. (And, I might note, when a literal interpretation is wholly at odds with the intent of the original authors.)

    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    I just hope that in the face of other ideas we will all allow ourselves to question what we beleive to be true and factual, and seek the truth instead of baricading ourselves in behind a wall of facts in which the morter is our current (possibly wrong) understanding of the evidence.
    While individual scientists may from time to time be guilty of such, the scientific method is immune to it. That is its immense strength.

    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    PS... how do you do the cool looking quote thingy?!?!
    At the top right of an individual post is a small quote button. Hit that and the full text of that post will appear in the reply text box.
    Copy all of that, then delete the portions you don't want for your response.
    Write your response, then paste the full text a second time. Edit as required, write your response. Continue till finished.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    The weakness of the scientific method, IMHO, is that just because an equation balances doesn't mean it is truth. If you run the same test with the same false premise over and over you get presicion and acuracy in your experiment but continue to get incorrect information that appears true.

    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Everything they've ever "known" has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on it. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." (Men in Black)


    Science is gradual and the scientific method is very good. But the scientific method still fails us at times. Not because of the method it self but becuase of our understanding of the paramaters of our own experimentation. (this eludes back to the knowable vs unknowable information discussion) If we start with something we claim to know that hasn't been proven, or with something we assume to be true, and the equation balances then all aspects of the hypothesis are considered true. If all experiments are done with the same miscalculation and thus come up with the same answers they will agree on the same misinformation as true. Without citing examples yet, would anyone be willing to agree with me that this is a possible weakness of the scientific method and aspects of this may be present in our scientific community?
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    Without citing examples yet, would anyone be willing to agree with me that this is a possible weakness of the scientific method and aspects of this may be present in our scientific community?
    No. Not without examples. I fully agree that scientists, being human, can overlook aspects of an experiment that will lead to a faulty interpretation of reality. I do not agree that the scientific method will allow this to remain so. I am unable to envisage an instance where this would be the case. This is why I need an example to convince me otherwise. The limitation may be in my imagination. Peer review, by yourself, will overcome such a shortfall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    think the equivalent of "reductio ad absurdum" in maths applied to other sciences : because science is an interlinked set of observations and theories attempting to explain those observations, application of logic will bring the inconsistencies out, somewhat like bits of a puzzle that originally seem to match but on closer examination don't

    it may take some time, but inconsistencies will either be resolved and proven to be false objections, or they will prove to be real and require the theory explaining the observations to be modified or scrapped altogether

    and don't believe allegations that science is one big conspiracy - if you know some of the vendettas going on between scientists, then you'll also know that scientists love nothing better than to prove their rivals wrong
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    I wasn't trying to avoid examples. I was simply trying to lay the groundwork for a discussion. To see if we agree on or could discuss the strengths and flaws of the scientific method.

    An example would be the Geocentric model of the universe. The world believed it to be true until many years after it was questioned and replaced with the heliocentric model. Any time we see a theory overturned we see both the truth and the error of the scientific method. The scientific method produced a model generally accepted by all that was later to be found false as new technologies were used and new minds focused on the issue.


    If a hypothesis in its formation goes through A B C D E F G H I J and we find an error in D we should go back and learn from C forward redoing experiments to validate any information that potentially had changed.

    Ophiolite said, "I fully agree that scientists, being human, can overlook aspects of an experiment that will lead to a faulty interpretation of reality. I do not agree that the scientific method will allow this to remain so."

    The scientific method when followed will allow change and progression of thought. The downside is now that science is driven by cashflow (If you disagree try to research substomic structure on a teachers salary) people with no research capitol don't have the resources to conduct experiments that will be taken seriously by the scientific community. Current truth's are limited not by intellect as they once were, but by how well connected/funded a scientist is.


    Science, scientists, and scientific research are not the debil.

    An example of the failure and examples its strength are in the same sentance.

    "Every time a theory is disproven for the acceptance of another it is evidence of the scientific methods failure and success."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolet...tific_theories

    this site has several theories that were accepted and taught that are now considered invalid. Again the strenght of the scientific method is that the theories were disproven. The weakness is that the the theories actually made it to theory status before they were proven wrong. How many of todays theories will suffer the same fate at the hands of fresh minds and better technology?


    PS tired and sick today... sorry if this is a little incoherant.
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    let's try not to confuse models or theories constructed to explain something with the methods used to investigate - they're not even remotely related

    it is possible to use different methods to investigate the validity of a scientific theory - it's just that time has shown the scientific method to be exceptionally good at ultimately getting to the truth (if there is a truth to be found, that is)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    An example would be the Geocentric model of the universe.
    This is a poor example. Indeed it is not really an example at all.
    While it is true that that a form of science was practised by the Greeks and earlier civilisations, modern science, following what we are calling the scientific method, is a comparatively late arrival on the scene.
    One of its early proponents was Sir Francis Bacon, who established the importance of experiment and observation. The geocentric model was one of the first wrong headed ideas to fall to this powerful new approach.
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    The scientific method produced a model generally accepted by all that was later to be found false as new technologies were used and new minds focused on the issue.
    I hope you can see now that this was not the case. The modern scientifi method did not produce the geocentric model, though I concede it could have.
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    If a hypothesis in its formation goes through A B C D E F G H I J and we find an error in D we should go back and learn from C forward redoing experiments to validate any information that potentially had changed.
    Which is exactly what is done, with the addition that the results of A, B and C will also be reexamined. And periodically an anarchist in the ranks will go back beyond A and challenge one of the underlying axioms.
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    Current truth's are limited not by intellect as they once were, but by how well connected/funded a scientist is.
    Which has nothing to do with the scientific method, as Marnix noted.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    An example of the failure and examples its strength are in the same sentance.
    "Every time a theory is disproven for the acceptance of another it is evidence of the scientific methods failure and success."
    No. It is not a weakness, unless you happen to be someone who craves absolutes. It is merely a characteristic. So what if some of our current ideas turn out to be wrong? Where is the problem in that? You seem to think that is a serious issue. Why?.
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    PS tired and sick today... sorry if this is a little incoherant.
    Sorry to hear that. Take care.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    An example of the failure and examples its strength are in the same sentance.
    "Every time a theory is disproven for the acceptance of another it is evidence of the scientific methods failure and success."
    No. It is not a weakness, unless you happen to be someone who craves absolutes. It is merely a characteristic. So what if some of our current ideas turn out to be wrong? Where is the problem in that? You seem to think that is a serious issue. Why?.
    Ah the (possibly distorted) echoes of Thomas Kuhn.

    The problem is that it is an exaggeration that is just plain nonsense to it core. Kuhn's analysis may have been applicable to new theories or soft sciences, but once the process you have discussed as follows has been rolling for a while, the only "scientific revolutions" are those which touch the outer fringe of a theory where exotic exceptions can be found, and we keep on teaching the older simpler theory because it remains perfectly valid for that which it applies to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    As further scientists repeat his experiments and confirm his findings; as other scientists test the predictions made by his hypothesis and find them supported; then I become increasingly confident in that hypothesis. Because, and only because, it is borne out by the facts.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    Agreed: it was a poor example.

    I was also wrong in my statement about the model being a product of the scientific method.

    I feel that it is a serious issue becuase so many people do experiments on the same topic with the same basic information and come up with vastly different "theories"

    Where I get that sinkin in the pit of my stomach is when people jump ahead of themselves and teach theory as fact or hypotheses as theory, even in the face of hard oppositioin from the scientific community. I'm sure you have been to at least one scientific debate.

    How much agreement and time does it take for a hypothesis to be considered a theory? Who actually decides?

    I think you phased it well earlier when you said I seem to crave absolutes. I'm trying to get past it for the sake of science and research.

    There is little accountability for education the USA. (Where I am from) Our education system is a joke and I am a product of that flawed weak education system. Even now I am working with a student who believes he has a family member that was born with working gills because a doctor explained the "mass" in his neck incorrectly. This is part of the reason I am throwing out the old and reexamining everything. Part of my search for truth is seeking out how we got so far from it. I am writing a book called "Welcome to the Misinformation Age" that discusses the weakness and flaws of the scientific and religious communities. I agree that the scientific method is solid. The weakness is in the people who use it. I see the same truth about the Bible.

    My goal is become the most educated man on the planet even though right now I am ranked almost last.
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    the best that can happen to a theory is that new evidence, not originally postulated by the theory, comes up and fits seamlessly in the predictions made by that theory

    e.g. genetics was originally thought to be the death knell of the natural selection theory, until further investigations showed that it actually supported it, and filled in the bit about variation that Darwin had consistently failed to explain satisfactorily
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    I agree that the scientific method is solid. The weakness is in the people who use it.
    That is my central point. The defense of the indefensible; the conversion of theory to dogma; the rejection of anything contrary to current thinking: these are all symtomatic of bad scientists, not bad science.
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    My goal is become the most educated man on the planet even though right now I am ranked almost last.
    Good goal. From my pesrpective this means you aim to become more ignorant. If our knowledge is envisaged as the contents of a ballon, and what we do not know lies outside that balloon, then the skin of the ballon is defines our current limits of knowledge, our ignorance. As we learn more, the balloon enlarges and the surface area increases, so that our ignorance increases.
    My goal is to become slightly more ignorant every day.

    Mitchell, sorry I did not understand the thrust of your post - I see you were reflecting on our opening disagreement over Khun, but I could not understand how you were tying it into this topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •