|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2007 : 05:35:27 [Permalink]
|
| (Updated this post.) |
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. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2007 : 06:36:08 [Permalink]
|
If we really want to get serious about discussing Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Column, here might be a good place to start. It gives a good, general run-down on it that even an iggnerent redneck such as I can understand. Background
Stratigraphic Principles and Relative Time
Much of the Earth's geology consists of successional layers of different rock types, piled one on top of another. The most common rocks observed in this form are sedimentary rocks (derived from what were formerly sediments), and extrusive igneous rocks (e.g., lavas, volcanic ash, and other formerly molten rocks extruded onto the Earth's surface). The layers of rock are known as "strata", and the study of their succession is known as "stratigraphy". Fundamental to stratigraphy are a set of simple principles, based on elementary geometry, empirical observation of the way these rocks are deposited today, and gravity. Most of these principles were formally proposed by Nicolaus Steno (Niels Steensen, Danish), in 1669, although some have an even older heritage that extends as far back as the authors of the Bible. A few principles were recognized and specified later. An early summary of them is found in Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, published in 1830-32, and does not differ greatly from a modern formulation:
The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.
Note that these are principles. In no way are they meant to imply there are no exceptions. For example, the principle of superposition is based, fundamentally, on gravity. In order for a layer of material to be deposited, something has to be beneath it to support it. It can't float in mid-air, particularly if the material involved is sand, mud, or molten rock. The principle of superposition therefore has a clear implication for the relative age of a vertical succession of strata. There are situations where it potentially fails -- for example, in cave deposits. In this situation, the cave contents are younger than both the bedrock below the cave and the suspended roof above. However, note that because of the "principle of cross-cutting relationships", careful examination of the contact between the cave infill and the surrounding rock will reveal the true relative age relationships, as will the "principle of inclusion" if fragments of the surrounding rock are found within the infill. Cave deposits also often have distinctive structures of their own (e.g., spelothems like stalactites and stalagmites), so it is not likely that someone could mistake them for a successional sequence of rock units.
These geological principles are not assumptions either. Each of them is a testable hypothesis about the relationships between rock units and their characteristics. They are applied by geologists in the same sense that a "null hypothesis" is in statistics -- not necessarily correct, just testable. In the last 200 or more years of their application, they are often valid, but geologists do not assume they are. They are the "initial working hypotheses" to be tested further by data.
|
Good read.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 06:43:38 [Permalink]
|
St. Augsitine in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis:
| Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7] |
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 07:18:10 [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?
|
What you should do is actually learn more about the topics you're discussing, otherwise you won't be able to tell the difference between the lies and the truths.
Start with actual science web sites and publications. For example, if RD really is calibrated to the geologic column, then you should be able to show it from those sources because, somewhere, they have to describe how it was all put together ( you will see the error, even if they are too indoctrinated to realize it).
Good luck. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 09:07:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
St. Augsitine in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis:
| Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7] |
|
Good advice from Mr. A... |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 10:40:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
[Good advice from Mr. A...
|
Good advice for a christian. Too bad that the christian evolution-deniers don't listen to it... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 19:01:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Bill scott
[Good advice from Mr. A...
|
Good advice for a christian. Too bad that the christian evolution-deniers don't listen to it...
|
I am Christian and do not deny evolution. I have explained that several times in this thread & fish fin alone. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 20:04:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
If we really want to get serious about discussing Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Column, here might be a good place to start. It gives a good, general run-down on it that even an iggnerent redneck such as I can understand. |
Another quick and easy-to-read-for-the-layman article can be found
here on George Hrab's blog. The article/talk (given at DragonCon) was actually titled something along the lines of "how we know the EARTH is older than six thousand years", but it's pretty relevant to the discussion at hand.
There's audio of this on episode episode 31 of the Geologic Podcast. Warning: this podcast, while I (usually) find it amusing, is somewhat in-your-face, and may not be to you liking. Read the full intro at the link above for the summary.
Some highlights/show segments:
Gay or Southern?
Watching a walrus orgy.
Geo's Mom Reads JayZ Lyrics.
Ask George.
Life... worth dying for?
The Adventures of The Pretentious Percussionist.
Religious Moron of the Week.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 11/01/2007 20:06:33 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 20:17:10 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| You can assert that all you like, of course, but that doesn't make it true. |
Your assuming that molecules-to-man is correct. That is why m-t-m scientists have a preconceived belief that the earth is millions of years old. They have to.
| 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. |
What a minute, I never said that science was "just" a belief.
| Whether something is "true" or not must just be another "belief," |
I suppose philosophically, yes.
| and so why I should I care at all what you think is "true" or not? |
You shouldn't. In the end all you have is that which you find most “reasonable.”
| 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. |
Even if that assumption is assumed that the value of it being incorrect is the closest positive value next to zero, it's still an assumption.
| This isn't a "belief" but just a working assumption that can't possibly be verified or refuted. |
Can you give me your definition of working assumption?
| It's not a "belief" because the other choices mean that science simply cannot function. |
Science and belief can/do coexist, no mater how many times you assert that they do not.
| It's not "knowledge," either, but a limit to knowledge. |
I agree.
| Given such a nasty constraint, what science provides is as "real" knowledge as possible. |
Nasty, or not, close to “real” knowledge is still not “real” knowledge.
| And it really doesn't matter if individual pieces of that knowledge are incorrect, |
It doesn't?
| that doesn't turn science into "belief." |
It already is a belief, now just an incorrect belief as well.
| It means the knowledge is wrong. |
Yep.
| The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science (and everything else humans do). |
I could not agree with you any more, here.
| But most importantly, because some piece of knowledge might be wrong, it is not reasonable to assume that it is wrong. |
"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.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 11/01/2007 21:37:16 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 20:58:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave, also, when you assert that mistakes made by scientists will be corrected by other scientists, are you assuming that all mistakes will even be discovered, that it is imposable for a mistake made by a scientist to go undetected? If not then wouldn't we have to assume how many have?
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 21:04:17 [Permalink]
|
Bill said:
Dude, your on this site 24/7.
|
The hell I am.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 21:25:53 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott, I want you to know that I have lost interest in your posts, mainly due to the one-line responses. They would be more readable if you'd consider removing some of the blank lines, thereby allowing the substance of your post to show up on one screen.
It is somewhat annoying to have to scroll down for each little sentence. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 21:41:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
It is somewhat annoying to have to scroll down for each little sentence.
|
sorry. fixed. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 21:43:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Dave, also, when you assert that mistakes made by scientists will be corrected by other scientists... |
I never made any such assertion, Bill. You must have me confused with someone else. Nothing I said even depends upon mistakes being corrected, because if they weren't we'd never know they were mistakes (true of all human knowledge, scientific or not).
And almost from the beginning of your long reply to me, above, you made it clear that you will not let go of your assumptions in order to give what I've got to say a fair hearing. You are stuck in a knowledge-versus-belief dichotomy, and can't break free of it even to try to understand that something as simple as "the world exists" is not a belief, but a constraint.
We tried it my way and you didn't want to participate. We tried it your way and your dismissals began almost immediately. This is why you will never understand that "fish-to-philosopher evolution" isn't a belief or an assumption, and that evolutionary biologists aren't forced to "believe in" an old Earth. The problem is not that I'm not communicating; the problem is not with science, or with any assumptions or speculation. The problem is that you refuse to listen.
I can't help but remember that old thread wherein people here (myself included) patiently explained to you, Bill, what scientists mean when they say "transitional fossil," and you appeared to understand, but then afterwards you went back to the old creationist canard that there are no transitional fossils. Even when you appear to be listening, you're not listening. |
- 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 : 21:43:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
|
Bill scott, I want you to know that I have lost interest in your posts, mainly due to the one-line responses. |
K.I.S.S. |
"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.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
ID predicts.......
