Printable View
We don't appear to have science on our side. We do have science on our side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
And again, I'm not atheist, but I lump myself in that general group because I do, quite frankly (and I don't care if anyone is offended by this) find religion to be absurd. You can say to me that you find my belifs absurd, that's fine. But I'd be lying if I said that I didn't find the beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. to be absurd.
So you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by metal134
Fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by metal134
Metal, You would claim that you you as an atheist have science on your side? I would like to know then, scientifically how you believe that the world has come into being. As an agnostic you could easily answer that you niether know nor care, but as an atheist who claims to have science on your side I should hope that you could back that up with somthing. The way I see it science,by its very nature, has a very difficult, if not impossible task at figuring out the origin of it all. The reason I say this is that the scientific method is:
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses" -Merriam-Webster dictionary
The problem this creates for using science as a means of discovering the origin of all things is that, if evolution is true, scientists have no way of observing or experimenting with these things and they have no way of testing thier hypothoses, thus negating the scientific method for research on evolution. And sicne evolution cannot be proven scientifically on what basis can one believe in it? faith? And if it is faith (which I believe must be the foundation of all beliefs) then I have my choice in what I put my faith in. From what I understand the majority of people today believe either in evolution or in a divine creator. So if I believe in evolution I, in essence, believe (pardon my simplification) that somehow everything there was (we don't know where the everything came from) came together and began to spin at an incredible rate until it finaly exploded creating all the matter in the universe. From that point and in contradiction to the law of entropy, order was born and became more and more complex until here we sit today arguing about the existance of God and from this point onward who knows what will happen next.
The other option is to believe that God, a supernatural being who is beyond our comprehension for reasons we cannot fully understand created everything and here we sit.
The way I see it, both of these theories sound rather far fetched, in fact I am going to go so far as to say that, in the normal and natural realm of possiblity, both of these theories are impossible. However, one of these theories has an answer for the impossible, the theistic creationist view leaves room for the supernatural.
Wrong. Evolution can and has been tested and proved scientifically, but perhapsQuote:
Originally Posted by Lector
you could you explain why you maintain that it cannot?
Besides, I wouldn't go around making epistemological research on a dictionary.
Im sorry to say that religion also has science on their side:
www.answersingenesis.com
www.leaderu.com
www.discovery.org
One of the claims against evolution by the people at answers in genesis goes a bit like:
"Oh but fossils dont come with 'age tags' on them showing their age".
I guess thats what radiocarbon dating is for, duh
Carbon dating is not infallible, and any dating done by it is based on certain assumptions about the way carbon decays and the consistency of that decay rate. The fact that this method of measurement requires certain assumptions in order for it to be considered viable, immediately brings the veracity of carbon dating into question as a valid source of measurement - so no: it's not necessarily an obvious "duh."Quote:
Originally Posted by Guzmán
Everything is based on assumptions except one's own consciousness, according to solipsism and Descartes’ famous dictum. And "I" think that even that may be based on a last assumption of "I", i.e., "something" thinks, therefore "something" is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Nothing is infallible. Science has never claimed infallibility. You are confusing science with religion. Religion always claimed infallibility - all 40,000 of them.
Thus you do not understand science, Redz. Science, by the way, is self-correcting over time. Religion is not - it just claims truth, unverified and unverifiable, and just sticks with whatever it first came up with until forced to change by science, e.g., geocentricity. Science as a process or methodology makes progress in time. Religion does not.
I have already said about three times that I'm not an atheist. Why is it that as soon as you say you don't believe in the bible, you are an atheist? I believe in a Supreme Being, but I don't think he/she/it 1)Has anything at all to do with the affairs on this planet 2) doesn't really care anyway. And I don't mean that in a "God has forsaken us" kind of way, I mean it in a "we are not God's concern" kind of way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lector
Is there a particular reason you're throwing all this at me? Guzman made it sound like it was a foregone conclusion that carbon dating establishes the scientific age of the earth. I simply pointed out that that method is not without a certain amount of "assumption" behind it - and assumptions are not scientific proof. Scientific assertions based on methods that incorporate assumptions are open to question. That was my only point. What you're responding to, I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Please - spare me your assumptions of what you think I do and do not know. You know next to nothing about me or what I understand about science.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
OK - so you and I worship different gods - what's the big deal? Yours makes mistakes and needs to "fix" itself and mine doesn't. I'm not trying to sway you from your beliefs in science. Have at it and enjoy the comfort it gives you (at least for now, until it has to "correct" itself again, and what you believed to be right must now be revised).Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Ok, I am going to adress bluevictims response to my question (thanks by the way). However, first something that has been annoying me: Carbon-14/Radiocarbon dating is only used for attempting to date something within the last 60,000 years, beyond that it is unreliable due to the 1/2life of the C14 isotope. For objects thought to be older than that a different isotope is used to estimate age; usually Uranium-238, also carbon dating is generally used solely on formerly living organisms. It annoys me when people refer to others as not knowing about science and then go on to use the wrong terms. This is radioisotope dating not necessarilly radiocarbon dating.
Anyway.....
It is fine to simplify the question to a religious requirement (though I am also interested on perhaps whether there would be a higher likelihood to change if was solely a cultural, not religious practice).Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
That is pretty close to the point I was attempting to make, but it also included my belief that the divine law protestation only works with people who believe in that divine law/religion - perhaps with the exception of the golden rule which there is a version of in nearly all religions (if I remember my World religions class correctly)
Your comment is correct, i agree with you, the duh remark was out of order. Besides as another user points out apparently it is not carbon thats used but another element, my mistake. (Then again shouldnt carbon dating be enough to tell things are older than 6000 years?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
However my real point was about the "answers in genesis" website. The thing is that in all of the articles in their page that i read it was stated, as a fact, that scientist dont know the age of fossils, and uranium dating (or any other method for that matter) wasn't mentioned even once!!!
Its not like they said, as you pointed out, that scientific dating of fossils may be innacurate, they just ommited it altogether and said that science cant tell the age of fossils, period. That in my book, is hiding information from the public in a malicious manner, unless they are terribly ignorant, how can they make such an outrageous statement and not offer an explanation or one friggin source is unbelievable. And they claim to be teaching people.
I didnt lecture anyone about science, nor claim that carbon dating is the only method for dating fossils, nor anything at all about its accuracy or reach into time, i just tried to make a point about how many of this websites make outrageous claims appealing to public common sense and ingenuity to promote their world view. It is very often that these websites make claims without justfication or justify them without citing the sources from which they get the information, making it impossible for the reader to examine what they say with a critical eye. Again, im not trying to discuss carbon testing or any other device for chemical dating (which i admit to have very little knowledge of the intricacies of the subject), i only brought up radiocarbon testing because it is the most commonly known.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
End of debate. Bring in the clinical psychologist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
BTW, sometimes atheists have this same problem. Anyone remember Ayn Rand? Boy, she was quite a piece of work too.
If this is true than I am mistaken, I have never read nor heard of evolution (that is macro-evolution) ever being observed. I am now curiouse and hope that you can point me in the right direction to find out more about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guzmán
As to you not appreciating my use of a dictionary I thought that since you brought up science on your own behalf that it would be prudent to work with an actual deffinition of the scientific meathod.
The fact that something hasn't been observed doesn't mean it hasn't happened. That's what proofs are for. If we observed evolution we wouldn't need any proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lector
Btw, I found this site, which compares some major creationist statements against evolution and their evolutionist rebuttal. I've found it interesting.