|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2007 : 11:39:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Well it is assumed that molecules-to-mice-to-man mutations are possible, no matter what, if any, mechanisms you care to assign as the acting agent. |
No, once again, that's part of the conclusion of the argument, not an assumption. You've got things backwards.| Just because one has a belief in common decent and has observed molecules, mice, and men does not make the mutations so. |
I don't know of anyone who has a "belief in" common descent, either.
Your assumption that these are beliefs is what is flawed here, Bill, but you're unwilling to entertain the idea that a scientific philosophy is necessarily different from your philosophy, and so you think that the terms in use are equivalent. And what's most telling is the parts of my posts that you choose to not respond to. All attempts to draw you into a discussion in which you might wind up seeing my point of view (not agree with, just see) you simply reject, unacknowledged. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 12:07:17 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| No, once again, that's part of the conclusion of the argument, not an assumption. You've got things backwards. |
But in this case I am saying that the conclusion is the/an assumption.
| And what's most telling is the parts of my posts that you choose to not respond to. All attempts to draw you into a discussion in which you might wind up seeing my point of view (not agree with, just see) you simply reject, unacknowledged. |
I simply grow tired of playing the word games. Rather then attempting to draw me into anything why don't you just come out and explain your point of view? Maybe I don't understand your point of view? It would be much easier if you would just explain it to me rather then play connect-the-dots. It would speed up the flow of thread tremendously. I want to understand your POV even if I disagree with it. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 12:07:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
It is amazing how consistent two things can be when one is calibrated by the other. |
That is how astronomers measured the mass of Pluto and Charon, as well as any binary star system. And don't forget that the geologic column is also calibrated with radiometric dating.
Edited to add/explain: They use one entity to measure the other. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/01/2007 05:31:51 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 12:11:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And don't forget that the geologic column is also calibrated with radiometric dating.
|
What is radiometric dating calibrated too? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 12:13:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by leoofno
Originally posted by Bill scott
How about the fact that the geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution.
|
Where DO you get this stuff?
...
Seriously, where did you get that "fact" from?
|
When Bill says "fact" he means that it is his belief that "the geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution".
And you know what? Bill admits that beliefs can be wrong.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 12:25:54 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
| When Bill says "fact" he means that it is his belief that "the geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution". |
But it was based on the assumption of evolution.
| And you know what? Bill admits that beliefs can be wrong. |
Yep.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 12:49:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Ok. How about the assumption that the natural selection mechanism is capable of mutating molecules-to-mice and mice-to-men. |
If you even cared about knowing the details of the theory of evolution, you would have known that man didn't evolve from mice. Flaunting your ignorance isn't strengthening your case one bit. Before you even try to change our minds about evolution, how about you proving that you actually understands the intricacies of it. Before that you won't be in a position to make a difference. In fact, it's even dammaging your cause because it makes you look rather hostile toward science.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 13:05:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Bill scott
Ok. How about the assumption that the natural selection mechanism is capable of mutating molecules-to-mice and mice-to-men. |
If you even cared about knowing the details of the theory of evolution, you would have known that man didn't evolve from mice. Flaunting your ignorance isn't strengthening your case one bit. Before you even try to change our minds about evolution, how about you proving that you actually understands the intricacies of it. Before that you won't be in a position to make a difference. In fact, it's even dammaging your cause because it makes you look rather hostile toward science.
|
It was just a catch phrase but I do see your point.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 13:20:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by leoofno |
| I probably shouldn't have used the word assumed. |
No you should have.
|
The correlation is logically inferred, not assumed. I asked, but you haven't shown how it is invalid. Probably because its not.
| Please explain how radiometric dating is calibrated to the geologic column. Since the column had no dates assigned to it before the advent of this technique, I find it hard to see how it could be done. |
It is amazing how consistent two things can be when one is calibrated by the other.
|
Indeed.
Geologists experiment with different methods to determine which are valid within the geological context of their samples.
Under uniformitarian geology a rock or fossil's location in the geologic column is the most important part of a sample's geological context.
The result is that the geologic column effectively serves as a filter for dates, such that acceptable dates agree with the geologic column.
|
If I understand you, you think that geologists tried many dating techniques until finding one that agreed with the existing geologic column. I'd like to know what those rejected techniques were, because I have no idea what they could have been.
Prior to radiometric dating, the actual ages of the rocks could not be measured at all. The age of the Earth estimates were based on things like models of a cooling planet, or how long it would take the oceans to reach current salinity levels. Radiometric techniques were the first and so far only way to date rocks directly.
Different isotopes, with different half-lives, can be used and they all say the same thing.
So as a result all radiometric dating methods are calibrated to the geologic column.
|
You have not shown this to be the case at all.
Radiometric dating is based on the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes present in the rocks when they were formed. The half-life is a measure of this rate and needs no calibration. You take a sample, measure the parent/daughter ratios, and bingo! You get an age. No calibration required. It is what it is.
| Radiometric dating, by showing the incredible antiquity of the Earth, changed all that. |
Assuming that it was calibrated to miles rather then feet.
Take ten cars and calibrate their odometers to 1 mile = 1 foot and then have them driven around an average size city. The results from all ten cars would produce surprisingly consistent and detailed data showing various locations around the city to be tens of thousands of miles apart, when they are in reality at most only a few miles apart.
|
Its a good thing that nothing at all like that is involved in radiometric dating.
I see. You really don't know what you are talking about. You're just cut-and-pasting stuff from this web page. And they don't know what they're talking about, so you're really up a creek.
You are being lied to. Notice that the article is very short on actual critiques. They say RD (I'm getting tired of spelling it out) is calibrated to RD, but don't say how its done. There's a reason for that. It's because its not done. All they really have is a single sentence about throwing away samples that do not give the desired age. Thats not calibrating, thats picking and choosing and is a pretty lame critique. Geologists do not just keep testing rocks until they get a date they like, and reject the rest as contaminated. That would be too costly and an enormous waste of time since most samples would be giving the same, unacceptable date. And there's only a handfull of isotopes to use, so custon designing a date would be difficult if not impossible to do.
You should not trust that site. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2007 : 13:24:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by leoofno |
| I probably shouldn't have used the word assumed. |
No you should have.
| Please explain how radiometric dating is calibrated to the geologic column. Since the column had no dates assigned to it before the advent of this technique, I find it hard to see how it could be done. |
It is amazing how consistent two things can be when one is calibrated by the other.
Geologists experiment with different methods to determine which are valid within the geological context of their samples.
Under uniformitarian geology a rock or fossil's location in the geologic column is the most important part of a sample's geological context.
The result is that the geologic column effectively serves as a filter for dates, such that acceptable dates agree with the geologic column.
So as a result all radiometric dating methods are calibrated to the geologic column.
| Radiometric dating, by showing the incredible antiquity of the Earth, changed all that. |
Assuming that it was calibrated to miles rather then feet.
Take ten cars and calibrate their odometers to 1 mile = 1 foot and then have them driven around an average size city. The results from all ten cars would produce surprisingly consistent and detailed data showing various locations around the city to be tens of thousands of miles apart, when they are in reality at most only a few miles apart.
http://creationwiki.org/CD103
|
I love it! Someone has actually referenced Creationwiki, a site even more full of shit than Answers in Genesis. Made my day, that did!
Bill, your grasp, and Creationwiki's, of radiometric dating techniques is woefully out of touch with reaility. This link will give you an idea of how it actually works: Principles of Radiometric Dating
Naturally-occurring radioactive materials break down into other materials at known rates. This is known as radioactive decay.
Radioactive parent elements decay to stable daughter elements.
Radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by Henri Becquerel. In 1905, Rutherford and Boltwood used the principle of radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks and minerals (using Uranium decaying to produce Helium. In 1907, Boltwood dated a sample of urnanite based on uranium/lead ratios. Amazingly, this was all done before isotopes were known, and before the decay rates were known accurately.
The invention of the MASS SPECTROMETER after World War I (post-1918) led to the discovery of more than 200 isotopes.
Many radioactive elemtns can be used as geologic clocks. Each radioactive element decays at its own nearly constant rate. Once this rate is known, geologists can estimate the length of time over which decay has been occurring by measuring the amount of radioactive parent element and the amount of stable daughter elements.
|
This is hard science, Bill. There are no assumptions here beyond those lodged like limpets in the creationist mind.
Now before you get into fossils dating strata, I'll not assume, but state categorically, that it sometimes happens and it is usually as accurate as radiometric dating. If a fossil of a certain species is found in undated strata, and another of the same species from a known-age strata is in hand, it is perfectly aceptable to at least tentitivly date the strata by the known fossil. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with any of it.
Oh, and whilst we're about it, "molecules-to-mice" might be sort of acceptable if you want to emulate Hovind and/or Sarfati, but "mice-to-men" shows an utter ignorance of of the topic. Human evolution is a whole 'nother evolutionary pathway, and besides, mice too, are a relativly recent, evolutionary developement, as are we, ourselves.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 14:12:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
But in this case I am saying that the conclusion is the/an assumption. |
You can assert that all you like, of course, but that doesn't make it true.| I simply grow tired of playing the word games. |
But that's all you've been doing, as I've been trying to get you to realize. The fact that you could tell me that something isn't "true" but then talk about science as just a belief shows that you don't really understand what you are saying, either. Whether something is "true" or not must just be another "belief," and so why I should I care at all what you think is "true" or not?| Rather then attempting to draw me into anything why don't you just come out and explain your point of view? Maybe I don't understand your point of view? It would be much easier if you would just explain it to me rather then play connect-the-dots. It would speed up the flow of thread tremendously. I want to understand your POV even if I disagree with it. |
The primary assumption upon which evolution and all other sciences rest is that the world and the things in it are objectively "real" and that we can learn about them. This isn't a "belief" but just a working assumption that can't possibly be verified or refuted. It's not a "belief" because the other choices mean that science simply cannot function. It's not "knowledge," either, but a limit to knowledge. Given such a nasty constraint, what science provides is as "real" knowledge as possible.
And it really doesn't matter if individual pieces of that knowledge are incorrect, that doesn't turn science into "belief." It means the knowledge is wrong. The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science (and everything else humans do).
But most importantly, because some piece of knowledge might be wrong, it is not reasonable to assume that it is wrong. All the harping on how scientists make mistakes won't change that. If you can't demonstrate that something is wrong - as has happened with every other scientific mistake that's come to light - then saying it might be wrong is a non-starter. Your hypothetical judge would throw you out of his courtroom for such an argument. Where is the evidence that there is anything wrong about the big picture of "fish-to-philosopher evolution?" It's predictions have been validated many times already.
Don't have enough time to finish...
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 15:42:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
The primary assumption upon which evolution and all other sciences rest is that the world and the things in it are objectively "real" and that we can learn about them. This isn't a "belief" but just a working assumption that can't possibly be verified or refuted. It's not a "belief" because the other choices mean that science simply cannot function. It's not "knowledge," either, but a limit to knowledge. Given such a nasty constraint, what science provides is as "real" knowledge as possible.
|
Couldn't we just say that an "Objective Reality which we can measure and learn about" is an axiom from which we work. Since it is more basic and deeper than a belief.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 18:00:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Couldn't we just say that an "Objective Reality which we can measure and learn about" is an axiom from which we work. Since it is more basic and deeper than a belief. |
The point I was trying to make, though, is that without that axiom (or assumption) we simply cannot do science.
Heck, without that axiom, why get out of bed? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 04:55:03 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by filthy |
I love it! Someone has actually referenced Creationwiki a site even more full of shit than Answers in Genesis . Made my day, that did!
Bill, your grasp, and Creationwiki's, of radiometric dating techniques is woefully out of touch with reaility. This link will give you an idea of how it actually works: |
To be 100% honest with you, filthy, I have sinned. I came across creationwiki yesterday while goggling. I have never visited the site before and in my haste I ran with something that I had not researched. A dumb move on my part, I fully admit. A rule I try to keep is not to blindly except information from Christian or Creation websites simply because they claim to be Christian or Creationists. I completely ignored my own rule yesterday and I am disappointed in myself for doing so. So tell ya what, how about a I take step backwards and actually look further into creationwiki, and their take on the column, as well as your link, and after I do this then we can discuss my conclusions? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2007 : 05:23:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by filthy |
I love it! Someone has actually referenced Creationwiki a site even more full of shit than Answers in Genesis . Made my day, that did!
Bill, your grasp, and Creationwiki's, of radiometric dating techniques is woefully out of touch with reaility. This link will give you an idea of how it actually works: |
To be 100% honest with you, filthy, I have sinned. I came across creationwiki yesterday while goggling. I have never visited the site before and in my haste I ran with something that I had not researched. A dumb move on my part, I fully admit. A rule I try to keep is not to blindly except information from Christian or Creation websites simply because they claim to be Christian or Creationists. I completely ignored my own rule yesterday and I am disappointed in myself for doing so. So tell ya what, how about a I take step backwards and actually look further into creationwiki, and their take on the column, as well as your link, and after I do this then we can discuss my conclusions?
|
Excellent!
I visit Creationwiki now & again to see their updates. It's pretty slow as they don't seem to update often. I also do it, and should be ashamed but am not, for the amusment. Yours is the first time I've seen it used for reference anywhere.
Y'see, the problem is that the creationists have their conclusions before they they have done their research. Virtually all of their research is done to seek support for that conclusion. Science too, has something of a pre-conclusion; it's called an hypothesis, and will be tossed in a heartbeat if the research shows it to be incorrect.
Enjoy the Creationwiki visit. A lot of that stuff is pretty well written.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ID predicts.......
