Get Ready For New Requirements In Faith

[Gone]

Heliocentrisim is wrong?  True, the entire universe doesn't orbit our sun, but it's way better than geocentrism.

 

Typo...had geocentrisim in there but some how during cut and paste it went in the wrong place. You get the point though.

 

No, any real science is peer-reviewed.  People who can't understand it might have to take it on faith, but science doesn't expect anyone to do so.

 

Ah, did you miss the other examples? The whole T-Rex thing WAS peer-reviewed. Let's not pretend that peer review takes away ANY chance of things being wrong. That's just silly. Is red wine good or bad for you? Been dozens of peer reviewed studies on this and there is still no concurrence. 

 

By the way, do you have a problem with learning from past mistakes?  Religions tend to be really bad about ever admitting they were wrong about anything.

 

Of course not. What I can't abide by is people hiding behind science like they have all the answers and that aspects of science are not based on faith in current premises...which end up later being dead wrong.

[AZMike]

About those frogs: in case anyone wanted to know, they're not mutations at all and this is fairly well understood.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribeiroia_ondatrae

And this is just the tip of a much larger topic area involving parasite ecology.

 

Yes, wikipedia...for the primary literature go to the citations.

 

Edit: The earth IS flat. As evidence I invite any of you to merely get a map of the world and unfold or unroll it onto a table. See? Flat.

 

Ref S.I. Hayakawa, IMO.

[Gone]

 

 

Stosh: There are some who say God can't create the world in six days, but they can't measure the age of a rock.  Carbon dating has it's problems too.  

 

Merlyn: Name them.

 

 

 

Well, for one, the basis of carbon-14 dating assumes the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere as being constant. It isn't. Many of the science journals have confirmed this. Willard Libby even noted this in the 1960s in his papers on carbon dating, but the scientific community never took this in to account until recently. So science, as a group, ignored the fact that carbon levels differed historically and, therefore, many of the dating of artifacts was wrong.

 

We are now being asked to believe they have it right now....same thing they said when they originally dated the objects. So much for peer review.

[JoeBob]

I am not aware that any Eagle candidate has done that. What is your source for that statement?

 

Say what now? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/26835-ebor-no-belief-in-a-higher-power/

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Which religion has taught that the earth is flat?

 

I didn't say a religion taught that (though it wouldn't surprise me if some did); I said "some people's religious beliefs".

 

http://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8172270.stm

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

 

No, any real science is peer-reviewed.  People who can't understand it might have to take it on faith, but science doesn't expect anyone to do so.

 

Ah, did you miss the other examples? The whole T-Rex thing WAS peer-reviewed.

 

That doesn't mean it's intended to be taken "on faith".  If it was taken on faith, it wouldn't have been challenged.

 

 

Let's not pretend that peer review takes away ANY chance of things being wrong.

 

I'm not.  Don't pretend science demands that anything be taken "on faith".

 

Of course not. What I can't abide by is people hiding behind science like they have all the answers and that aspects of science are not based on faith in current premises...which end up later being dead wrong.

 

Anyone who knows anything about science knows that no conclusions are written in stone -- religion does that.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well, for one, the basis of carbon-14 dating assumes the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere as being constant. It isn't. Many of the science journals have confirmed this. Willard Libby even noted this in the 1960s in his papers on carbon dating, but the scientific community never took this in to account until recently. So science, as a group, ignored the fact that carbon levels differed historically and, therefore, many of the dating of artifacts was wrong.

 

No, they knew that was an assumption, and that's part of knowing what carbon-14 dating means.  Meanwhile, creationists frauds try to show it's false by dating sea fossils, which can't be dated using a method that depends on atmospheric carbon (yet they dishonestly do it anyway).

 

We are now being asked to believe they have it right now..

 

No, you aren't being "asked" to believe they have it right.  If you don't understand the assumptions being made and the possible errors involved, you might get that impression.

[Gone]

 

Well, for one, the basis of carbon-14 dating assumes the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere as being constant. It isn't. Many of the science journals have confirmed this. Willard Libby even noted this in the 1960s in his papers on carbon dating, but the scientific community never took this in to account until recently. So science, as a group, ignored the fact that carbon levels differed historically and, therefore, many of the dating of artifacts was wrong.

 

No, they knew that was an assumption, and that's part of knowing what carbon-14 dating means.  Meanwhile, creationists frauds try to show it's false by dating sea fossils, which can't be dated using a method that depends on atmospheric carbon (yet they dishonestly do it anyway).

 

We are now being asked to believe they have it right now..

 

No, you aren't being "asked" to believe they have it right.  If you don't understand the assumptions being made and the possible errors involved, you might get that impression.

 

 

Wow you like to twist things don't you?

 

All c-14 dating has assumed a constant, not a variable, thus the result is wrong. Period.

 

If they KNEW it was a variable they should have either 1) sought to define how to calculate the variable, or 2) put a HUGE disclaimer on the result as being +/- (x) where "x" equals the varying amount of carbon 14.

 

I don't see that mentioned very often when looking at c-14 results unless you are looking at the detail of the data. The layperson is not going to go looking for that. Without that disclaimer, Bubba is going to take it at face value.

[qwazse]

...

 

Edit: The earth IS flat. As evidence I invite any of you to merely get a map of the world and unfold or unroll it onto a table. See? Flat.

At p<.05 ... until you start launching projectiles that achieve orbital velocity.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Wow you like to twist things don't you?

 

All c-14 dating has assumed a constant, not a variable, thus the result is wrong. Period.

 

Thus the result has ERROR BARS.

 

Which have been reduced after calibrating with ancient air in ice cores.

 

If they KNEW it was a variable 

 

They KNEW they were assuming it was constant and noted that.

 

they should have either 1) sought to define how to calculate the variable, or 2) put a HUGE disclaimer on the result as being +/- (x) where "x" equals the varying amount of carbon 14.

 

THEY DO.

 

And they HAVE calibrated it using ice cores.  And even before then, they would cross-date things using different methods to check their accuracy.

 

You make it sound like C-14 dating was some kind of scam and that it was presented as infallible.  That's nonsense.

 

I don't see that mentioned very often when looking at c-14 results unless you are looking at the detail of the data. The layperson is not going to go looking for that. Without that disclaimer, Bubba is going to take it at face value.

 

Which means he's ignorant.  There's only so much you can do with people who insist on remaining ignorant.

 

I've been in a recent argument with someone who thought dinosaur bones were dated using C-14; I could never convince him that "radiometric dating" didn't mean "carbon-14 dating".

[skeptic]

To all that have fallen into the M trap.  You will never win, as M has total faith that he knows all and the rest of us are totally ignorant or unable to make a value judgement.  But it will guarantee a somewhat amusing series of ambiguous circuitous postings.  Have fun.

[Stosh]

Heliocentrisim is wrong?  True, the entire universe doesn't orbit our sun, but it's way better than geocentrism.

 

There are many things in which science expects people to take on faith too.

 

No, any real science is peer-reviewed.  People who can't understand it might have to take it on faith, but science doesn't expect anyone to do so.

 

By the way, do you have a problem with learning from past mistakes?  Religions tend to be really bad about ever admitting they were wrong about anything.

 

Hmmmm, peer reviews?  Yeah, right like Jesus didn't start out with 12 and end up with mega millions?  

 

Lets see, how many did Israel have?  Oh, yes, 12, too.  That kinda went viral too.

 

I'm not too sure about Mohammad, but I'm thinking his peer-review process is pretty well established. 

 

Kinda messes with that validity conclusion.

 

No, people who are not using the correct lingo, don't understand it, can't comprehend it, don't care, do not have to take science at face value and believe it's true.  Have I seen gravity work?  Yep, check that one as okay.  Have I seen airplanes fly?  Yep, don't understand, but I've seen it work.  I've even seen water change into two gasses.  Really cool.  But I'm sorry to say, I've never seen evolution nor seen evolution work.  But then again, no one has.  I'm gonna need a lot more before I buy into that one.  If one is going to promote Gnosticism, stick with what Gnosticism teaches.  We can only accept as truth that which is known.   That will leave out a whole lot of "science" in the process.  Otherwise, making up the rules by one's own initiative is all one has to rely on.  That's the result of the atheism assumption in the first place.  As a matter of fact, I don't believe "science" many times because even in my lifetime that which was touted as true, has come to fruition.  

 

Religion can't be wrong, it's based entirely on faith, one's faith traditions might be wrong, but the core truth of the religion has always been the same.  Sure, someone thought the Inquisition was a good idea at the time, but no where does Christianity teach that as an acceptable practice, never has.  Salem Witch Trials?  Again, some off the wall hysterical people let their personal emotions over ride the faith they thought they relied on.  Nope, just people being stupid, Has nothing to do with the religion.

 

If radical Islam is so correct in their present day interpretation of their religion, why weren't these people doing these things since the sixth century when Mohammad came on the scene?

 

The real unique thing about religion vs. the knowledge of humans is it is always one step ahead of us because even if we think we have all the answers, there's always one more question that someone asks.  

 

A man without hope in something better than what he has is destined to be no better than any other animal that walks the earth.  That will always separate the people of faith from those who refuse to believe.

[moosetracker]

You are entitled to your beliefs Stosh..

As stated by others, since there are many scientists who can study science and have a religious faith both, since many religions are not threatened by science then I through that I have found my peace of mind.. Different ways different religions have found a way to reconcile the two, but the one I heard growing up which seemed fine by me was that the six days was more poetic or that a day for God was millions of years for us.. If you look the timeline for when things were created then the Bible & science are in sync..

 

This is not to say your belief or mine or an atheists are wrong it just means there are different ways to look at things, just because an atheist might sight science as proof against religion, religious people do not have to be threatened by their viewpoint..

 

 

Science also gave us leaches, plating, an upright walking T-Rex, heliocentrisim, opening windows during a tornado to prevent your house from imploding or exploding due to air pressure and other such things that were all later proven to be wrong. There are many things in which science expects people to take on faith too. Often very long-established scientific principles turn out to be very wrong.

 

How many of these scientific theory's were disproven without scientists and science?.. You can argue that it took a while to be disproven, but you can not argue that it was not disproven or you would not have these to use for example.. Which basically states science does work, and continually improves and becomes more refined and accurate over time..

 

Dislike science all you want, but the truth is America is falling behind in educating our youth compared to other countries.. Math and science are both important components of education that all our schools must improve on to ever catch up.. That means not handicapping science because you feel threatened by it...  Who knows the future scientists that we educate today, may take what they learn about evolution and use it to one day either disprove evolution as we know it today, or fill in the gaps to evolution.. 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

To all that have fallen into the M trap.  You will never win, as M has total faith that he knows all and the rest of us are totally ignorant or unable to make a value judgement.  But it will guarantee a somewhat amusing series of ambiguous circuitous postings.  Have fun.

 

Feel free to lie about me, skeptic.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hmmmm, peer reviews?  Yeah, right like Jesus didn't start out with 12 and end up with mega millions?  

 

Lets see, how many did Israel have?  Oh, yes, 12, too.  That kinda went viral too.

 

I'm not too sure about Mohammad, but I'm thinking his peer-review process is pretty well established. 

 

Kinda messes with that validity conclusion.

 

 

No, it just shows you don't know what "peer review" means.

 

 

But I'm sorry to say, I've never seen evolution nor seen evolution work.  But then again, no one has.

 

Yes, they have.  They aren't limited by your ignorance of evolution.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Merlyn_LeRoy