Get Ready For New Requirements In Faith

[Stosh]

 

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.

 

That goes a long way to promote one's faith in the validity of the results.

 

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

 

Does ice absorb carbon the way living organisms do?  This is news to me.

 

If they KNEW it was a variable 

 

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

 

Assumptions?  Isn't that the whole basis for Evolution?

 

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.

 

If the shoe fits....

 

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".

 

 

 

[Stosh]

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

 

I'm sure everyone has their own idea what it means.

[Stosh]

I do believe there is a place in this world for science.  It is the quest for knowledge to help us understand that which is in our world.  It does not mean it can go beyond that premise and speculate, assume, project any agendas in the process.  

 

Just like Socrates, Darwin set out to attack the religions of the world by making the philosophical argument that God didn't create the world, it just happened as the course of natural events.  Of course there's no discussion as to what constitutes natural events and where and when they came together in such a perfect random way.  The key point to remember is that Socrates and Darwin and others put forth their treatises with the assumption that God does not exist.  How do we know that?  They along with their disciples were all atheists who in fact were promoting their cause.

[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.

 

That goes a long way to promote one's faith in the validity of the results.

 

You also don't know what error bars are for.

 

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

 

Does ice absorb carbon the way living organisms do?  This is news to me.

 

You could reduce your ignorance by looking up how ice cores are used to calibrate C-14 dating; I'm not about to try and teach you, since you won't even learn what "evolution" means, yet you continue to post about it as if you do.

 

If they KNEW it was a variable 

 

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

 

Assumptions?  Isn't that the whole basis for Evolution?

 

As I keep telling you, evolution has been observed.  You like to deny reality.

 

...

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

 

If the shoe fits....

 

Says the guy who says nobody has observed evolution.

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

...

The key point to remember is that Socrates and Darwin and others put forth their treatises with the assumption that God does not exist.  How do we know that?  They along with their disciples were all atheists who in fact were promoting their cause.

 

So Francis Collins is an atheist?

[Gone]

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..

 

Nothing like missing the point. The point was -- and I want to be clear here -- that just like religion, science walks around absolutely convinced of itself and asks people to believe them when they says something. Yet science often scoffs at faith for that very same approach (e.g. Biblical floods, plagues, etc.). Then later when proven wrong, science claims to have a new approach...and ask again that we believe them that this time they have it right. 

 

Oh, and as to who disproved it, yes it was science...but there were others saying science was wrong to begin with...science just decided to listen. 

 

For those who haven't seen it I would watch the South Park episode that satires science replacing religion and then falling in to the same schisms that religion fell in to. Very funny, if you have an open mind. 

 

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.. 

 

Wow....jump to conclusions much? I don't hate science, I just don't schluck everything they tell me.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Mozartbrau

[moosetracker]

Mozart - That is your opinion of science, mine is very different.. When has the religious opened the Bible to be disproved and if disproved is willing to rewrite the bible?..  Religion does not look for proof, it just asks you to believe..  You may point to a resistance for science to change, but a resistance to change is very different then never accepting change or never looking for proof.. Resistance to change is just human nature,  it may take a generation so that scientist who have their egos wrapped up in their theories retire, but if there is proof change it will.. Now it still might not be perfect, but it will become more accurate..  And that is what is wrong with your statement "Oh, and as to who disproved it, yes it was science...but there were others saying science was wrong to begin with...science just decided to listen." Others saying the science is wrong doesn't cut it in the world of science.. You need a way to prove your theory..

 

I don't know if anyone in the thread is stating the science about something is so perfect that it never can be improved upon.. I know I am not.. But, I will trust that the science that we have currently explains things more accurately then it did 100 years ago or 500 years ago..  As for religion I personally have changed my religious beliefs if it is more right or more wrong, I don't know, but it makes more sense to me, and no one can tell me or prove to me (nor ever will) that what I believe is incorrect..

[John-in-KC]

Given where this topic has gone, I agree with moving it to I&P. 

 

It started as a heads-up in advancement, but it's, shall we say, moved along...

[NJCubScouter]

Given where this topic has gone, I agree with moving it to I&P. 

 

It started as a heads-up in advancement, but it's, shall we say, moved along...

 

It has indeed.  I think it has moved along to the point where everybody who wants to make their point has done so, and the inevitable personal sniping has begun.  I guarantee all who are reading this that the chances of anyone changing their mind about evolution as a result of this thread are very slim.  As for the new Boy Scout requirements, it is my understand that at their meeting next week, the BSA is going to announce several changes in the requirements, including the one involving Duty to God.  My suggestion would be that when that happens, we can try again discussing it under Advancement or Open Discussion, without all of this that has consumed 20 pages - very little of which has to do with the new requirement.  (No guarantee that it won't be moved again to Issues and Politics though.  In order to do that, there would have to be an agreement from the beginning that the thread would stay limited to the narrow topic of advancement, including whether the requirement(s) is/are a good idea or not.)

[moosetracker]

... (No guarantee that it won't be moved again to Issues and Politics though.  In order to do that, there would have to be an agreement from the beginning that the thread would stay limited to the narrow topic of advancement, including whether the requirement(s) is/are a good idea or not.)

 

If you agree to stay with "How will you implement it", you may stay out of I & P, but if you allow opinion as to whether it is a good or bad idea, the only way that we don't end up back here is if we have had our fill on this topic enough to keep us happy for a month or two.

[Stosh]

I was kinda in favor of the idea posed for the advancement requirement, but if a consensus of how one does that and the types of discussion this generated, I have switched my opinion.  There's just too much "stuff" going on in the background to think the boys will be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

[TAHAWK]

"Do you even know what "species" means?  It appears not."

 

It's been a long time since I was  zoology lab assistant, but I recall that scientists agreed fairly well on the definition of a species in general language but fought bitter wars of words over the application.  My boss, Bayard Brattstrom, often observed that there were "lumpers" and "spliters."  You'd go nuts trying to keep up with the taxonomic changes in Rhododendrons and Azalias - just in the last century.  Dr. B used to tell funny stories about "bone wars."

 

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

All living organisms have DNA.  There are certain strands of DNA which are similar enough to basically identify the difference between an ear of corn and a homo sapient, but they share many of the same chromosomes.  I guess in some ways they are cousins.  However, on the other end of the spectrum, one must realize that every living organism has unique DNA, no two are alike.  So, it's a bit like fuzzy theory,  How many DNA changes must take place before ones has a different species?  One must also consider how these DNA structures change due to environmental factors.  Obviously the pond water was causing a change in the frogs of Minnesota and now 44 states and one Canadian province.  Another form of DNA alteration can either be by hybridization and by modern genetic engineering.  So when humans bred a horse with a donkey and got a mule, is the mule a new species?  I might be mistaken, but I don't think the mule made the cut because it can't reproduce.  It is also interesting to note that when hybrid plants are able to reproduce they go back to their original natural state.  Which eventually leads us to the problem of how and how much DNA changes need to occur for mutations.  I'm thinking very small amount can cause what we would call a mutation,  A few more changes one might call an adaptation, and if a lot changes maybe one would call it "evolution" of a new species.    All three definitions are arbitrary made up classifications that are left open to speculation and questioning.

 

It is on this premise I'm supposed to believe in evolution?  

 

So then we are to accept that since the Big Bang, which all scientists don't believe in, the mathematical probability of getting everything all together in the DNA strand, the basis for all living organisms would take longer than the best "scientific"  guess-timate since the dawn of the universe.  

 

Of course that leaves the whole issue that evolution doesn't even address, what triggered the creation of the universe and everything in it?  Evolution is nothing but a philosophical argument which proposes the premise that when one collects enough mutations in living organisms they might be able to survive and adapt to environmental conditions it finds itself in, such as hot vents in the floor of the oceans that are home to organism that cannot live anywhere else without dying.  Kinda like humans don't do well outside in sub-zero weather either.  But those who evolve into putting on coat, hat and mittens seem to have a longer life expectancy than those that don/t.

 

So where in all of this do we find the convincing argument that some sort of being, outside the confines of the universe didn't have a hand in making it all happen?  (I hope people don't think I meant literally a real hand, just a figure of speech.) Well evolution is our best shot at it at this point? and it's a pretty paltry attempt in my opinion.  Keep it in mind that no matter how good science may eventually get it is always limited to a relationship of time and space, neither of which any religion ascribe to their god(s).  Quote all the scientists one wishes who are knowledgeable in their field of study, once they cross the line out of the realm of time and space, they are no longer operating within their own definition of science.  This is where Socrates and later on Darwin build their philosophical assumptions.

 

Like I said, it's enough smoke and mirrors to fool a lot of people, and if one needs proof on that they're going to need to consult with people like P. T. Barnum and David Copperfield.

 

So riddle me this Joker, how did primitive humanity of 4,000 years ago, when still living a nomadic lifestyle, come up with a myth that would someday be supported by science as the correct order the world would need to be created in?  Either these people were really, really lucky, pretty scientifically sophisticated or someone tipped them off.  

 

And I'm the one accused to drinking the Koolaid?

Edited April 28, 2015 by Stosh

[SSScout]

Evolution::

 

Get ye to the county fair and walk ye thru the rabbit barn, shouldst there be.  There in ye willst see many a type of rabbit, each of a type unto itself, each of a type unknown in nature, each selectively bred out of the genetic diversity of the natural rabbit (or hare?).

 

The "natural rabbit"  contains within it's genetics, not only "brown" (called "agouti") fur , but the source and possibility of black, white, lilac, purplish, chestnut, grey, cinnamon, and others(!). Rabbits of 35 pounds(!) or 1. Long ears, or short. Ears held up or down. Short Fur or so long you might not be able to tell head from tail. Bodies long and lithe or short and squat.  

Perhaps some of these "types"  are good for survival (in the wild), perhaps not.   The forty or so  "show breeds"  do not exist in the natural world, but (like many other types of domestic animal) have been bred into existence by human endeavor.  But it remains that the POSSIBILITY has always been there, in the natural rabbit.

 

As has been said above,  we can't really argue about the  "supernatural event"  being scientifically explained. 

It ain't about the How so much as about the Why.   If there is no Why, then there is no reason for religion.  But so long as some of us wonder Why, there will be a need for an ultimate Because....

 

http://rabbitbreeders.us/rabbit-breeds

Edited April 28, 2015 by SSScout

[TAHAWK]

Taxonomy is not based on organizing by DNA.  I think I remember that.