Science is Dogma...

[revelarts]

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake presented a TEDX talk and he was censored on TEDx youtube channel by a Dr's Myers and Coins army of follows who are hard core naturalist.
More faithful naturalist than scientist.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kAuxXvNVhgA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


from amazon

Dr. Rupert SheldrakeScience Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery
In Science Set Free (originally published to acclaim in the UK as The Science Delusion), Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, shows the ways in which science is being constricted by assumptions that have, over the years, hardened into dogmas. Such dogmas are not only limiting, but dangerous for the future of humanity.

According to these principles, all of reality is material or physical; the world is a machine, made up of inanimate matter; nature is purposeless; consciousness is nothing but the physical activity of the brain; free will is an illusion; God exists only as an idea in human minds, imprisoned within our skulls.

But should science be a belief-system, or a method of enquiry? Sheldrake shows that the materialist ideology is moribund; under its sway, increasingly expensive research is reaping diminishing returns while societies around the world are paying the price.

In the skeptical spirit of true science, Sheldrake turns the ten fundamental dogmas of materialism into exciting questions, and shows how all of them open up startling new possibilities for discovery.

Science Set Free will radically change your view of what is real and what is possible.

[aboutime]

So now. rev has become L. RON HUBBARD?????

Or maybe Tom Cruise. The master of SCIENTOLOGY???

[revelarts]

:facepalm99:

Can people talk about anything without someone slaping some BS label on the idea?

[aboutime]

:facepalm99:


Why else would you feel any need to post this rev?

[jimnyc]

Why else would you feel any need to post this rev?

With all due respect, I don't think he needs a reason to make a thread/post, other than it interests him. If people are interested, they will reply, if not, they shouldn't.

[revelarts]

Why else would you feel any need to post this rev?

Well taking your comment in the best light i'm guessing it was a joke. but it wasn't that funny IMO
so i posted :facepalm99: .

the comment that followed was a more serious take ,
it just seems that often when someone post some ideas or commentary that someone doesn't like, or haven't heard that POV or facts before that they put a negative label on the person and try to fit them into a box they've designed to fit those type of ideas. Then close the box.

[revelarts]

a few score of Scientist Challenge the Big Bang theory wrote an open letter to New Science mag in 2004. This is fairly old news but fairly new to me. but it seems there's powerful evidence that disproves the Big Bang theory. Evidence that's often been pushed aside by the "unbiased" and "only searching for truth" scientific establishment.

really interesting stuff.
what we don't know about the Comos seems to be much more than same are willing to admit.
....................................
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

Quote:


The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

[red state]

Yes, it is extremely interesting. I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Henry Morris (now the late Dr. Morris) and he has several books that show how ignorant the big bang loons really are. Google him and get a few of his books. His son not runs the Creative Institute in CA. so you may wish to google that as well.

I'm not getting into the debate again because it would be a waste of time to the closed minded. I see the argument and once believed in evolution but I have gotten smarter/wiser over the years and now see all the holes in this THEORY. I was particularly enlightened when I met Dr. Morris.

Wait on the hateful nuts to appear and try to debunk (disrespectfully so) another person's beliefs in another more reasonable theory.

Wait for it....

[fj1200]

... another more reasonable theory.

Young Earth is more reasonable?

[revelarts]

Young Earth is more reasonable?

At this point I'd say as reasonable.

[fj1200]

At this point I'd say as reasonable.

A stretch to say the least. Lest I be tagged as "closed minded." :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

A stretch to say the least.

you might be surprised.

[cadet]

Rev, I like this thread. It is true that all new scientific "facts" are being based off of unproven hypothesis, if anything get's proven wrong, like the big bang, everything else goes kaput.
I think the whole thing is about when you look into new things, don't base it off of anything.
What is it that detectives say? "If you're looking for a suicide, that's what you'll find. If you're looking for a murder, that's what you'll find. Don't rule out anything."
Hell, why even rule out that matter can't be created or destroyed? Do you have any idea what kind of theories would come out of that with expansion of the universe???
Who's to say that the universe isn't just a continually ticking clock, and there's neither beginnings nor endings in this universe, and time just keeps repeating itself in phases? Maybe history keeps repeating itself every couple billion years? Maybe we've nuked ourselves countless times into oblivion?
what if when black holes get so big, they rip a hole in the plane of space time, and shoot out in all directions due to massive amounts of anti-gravity?
who's to say there aren't multiple dimensions, that are all touching eachother in the 4th dimension, and there's a doorway somewhere leading to them? Maybe black holes are said doorway?
What if atoms aren't shaped the way we picture them? and they're actually some different thing all together?

[red state]

I agree and have had these "KraZy" thoughts as well. The possibilities or repetitive "history" is indeed fascinating!!!! I thought that the END could very well be the loop that starts it all over again. Who really knows but to be closed minded to legitimate possibilities while accepting what you've been told, taught or read is simply being a puppet without thought or character....just a piece of wood (or an old sock). I once bought into the THEORY of evolution during high school and college years but within my psychology classes, all sorts of innovative thinking was opened up to me via a brilliant Psych Professor. Then I met the absolutely brilliant Dr. Henry Morris. After spending a week with him during one of his conferences, I saw even more holes that disproved the theory of "something from nothing". Creationism, Intelligent Design and even perpetualism (both relative and BIBLICAL) seemed more reasonable and truly would benefit our children to OPEN their MINDS.

[cadet]

What if there is such thing as rebirth? What if time just keeps repeating, and souls just keep getting spun out into the world? And what if the world is simply affected by thought alone? And there's no real such thing as the world, just the mental image that most people have come up with?
Say everything is based on what people think, and non of it is real. Ever heard of experiments that change based on whether or not they're being observed?

[revelarts]

Rev, I like this thread. It is true that all new scientific "facts" are being based off of unproven hypothesis, if anything get's proven wrong, like the big bang, everything else goes kaput.
I think the whole thing is about when you look into new things, don't base it off of anything.
What is it that detectives say? "If you're looking for a suicide, that's what you'll find. If you're looking for a murder, that's what you'll find. Don't rule out anything."
Hell, why even rule out that matter can't be created or destroyed? Do you have any idea what kind of theories would come out of that with expansion of the universe???
Who's to say that the universe isn't just a continually ticking clock, and there's neither beginnings nor endings in this universe, and time just keeps repeating itself in phases? Maybe history keeps repeating itself every couple billion years? Maybe we've nuked ourselves countless times into oblivion?
what if when black holes get so big, they rip a hole in the plane of space time, and shoot out in all directions due to massive amounts of anti-gravity?
who's to say there aren't multiple dimensions, that are all touching eachother in the 4th dimension, and there's a doorway somewhere leading to them? Maybe black holes are said doorway?
What if atoms aren't shaped the way we picture them? and they're actually some different thing all together?

I like that detective comment.
You know the old Sherlock Holmes quotes
"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."

'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.'

'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?'

the problem with so many science ativities is that they get pieces of puzzles and say HEY this fits but when they get a piece that doesnt fit they won't take aprt the puzzle again to start over. and try new ways to arrange the sparse pieces.

the more i read i'm convinced we really don't no much about the comos. it's almost like we live in 1800's on an island in the Pacific and were guessing about what the rest of the world is like by pieces of wood that have floated to shore and study of migratory birds and fish.
or worse.

I think we've got data about the comos but assumptions about deep history seems crazy to me. all of the so called constants are in doubt now adays.
at the very least there's some small fluctuation and in some case large ones may be possible.

humility from a scientific position seems to be the way to go.
it's Fun to explore claiming all you conclusions are "fact" is hubris at this point . we just don't know enough.

[red state]

Yes and there is also the idea that one of us aren't really here. I may be a figment of your imagination or you and everyone around me may be a remnant of my memory which I am continuing in my death where some sort of consciousness lingers on. It is wild and I do not place much stock in anything other than my faith but I'm not going to disrespectfully shoot down other ideas or the possibilities as a close minded individual of self proclaimed intellect which is nothing more than ignorance. I prefer to view and review all possibilities...and our children's education would be well served if such leadership within the educational system were to be as open minded as the liberals claim to be.

[fj1200]

you might be surprised.

After perusing icr.org I certainly would be surprised. They seem to engage in exercises of logic rather than science.

[logroller]

Young Earth is more reasonable?


At this point I'd say as reasonable.


A stretch to say the least. Lest I be tagged as "closed minded." :rolleyes:


you might be surprised.
Radioisotopes indicate an earth that is billions of years old-- magnitudes apart from young earth estimates-- so no, young earth is not reasonable. It's the skeptics that are close-minded if they denounce radioisotope dating, not the other way around.

as for the logic on icr.org, its fallacious. For example,
Darwinism assumes that biological change is virtually unlimited—that, given enough time, bunnies can become belugas, and penguins can become people. http://www.icr.org/research/bio-origins/lock/ uh..no. it doesnt say that at all-- that's a strawman. Misrepresenting another's theory in order to disprove it is, at best, disingenuous. I'm willing to entertain alternatives, but be realistic. Red shift, lithium??? This is indicative of something over than an expanding universe how, exactly?

[revelarts]

Radioisotopes indicate an earth that is billions of years old-- magnitudes apart from young earth estimates-- so no, young earth is not reasonable. It's the skeptics that are close-minded if they denounce radioisotope dating, not the other way around.

as for the logic on icr.org, its fallacious. For example, uh..no. it doesnt say that at all-- that's a strawman. Misrepresenting another's theory in order to disprove it is, at best, disingenuous. I'm willing to entertain alternatives, but be realistic. Red shift, lithium??? This is indicative of something over than an expanding universe how, exactly?

Did i mention ICR, did i quote their statement about Darwinism?
If your talk-in-to-me that's a strawman. putting ideas forth as my view then saying you've knocked them down. c'mon log.
If you looked at what i've post here you'll get an idea of where i'm coming from.

I'll state my position flat out so there's no Confusion.
I do believe in a fairly young earth. And i'll state flatly it's not because of the science.

"OH No he doesn't want to know science He doesn't care what science says how can we have a real debate if it's all about "faith"!!!"

waaait a minute there hombre.

If you look at what i've said earlier. I don't think Science has enough data to conclusively make a clear determination of the age of the earth and NO WHERE near enough info to think about dating the Universe. or come up with a theory of "everything". Not that long ago early 1900's science thought that the milky way galaxy was THE ONLY galaxy.
I think science sometimes assumes far to much.

Let me ask you a question?

You mentioned Radioisotopes. Ok fine. that's one way to get an estimate of the age of something i suppose. Is it the only way? What if you have other reliable dating methods that give far different ages. Which one do you use?
The one that fits your theory the best of course. duh.
That exactly what we have here. there's a lot of interesting data out there that folks have collected to try and decipher the past. And lots of extrapolations based on the favorite data points.
WITHOUT integrating any pesky data that conflicts.

However, as the Sherlock Holmes quotes instructs.
Somethings can be ruled out if enough... or key... contradictory evidence is found. Which is why i reject flat out biological Macro evolution. From what i've come to understand it's flat impossible. There is no known mechanism for it to work in theory, or in experiment and it's never been seen. It's a scientific assumption. And even many mainstream scientist are scrambling trying to come up with a new theory.

And there's not even any serious attempts of science to answer how life came from non-life.
At least that's honest.
no hand waving,
"it the process of bio-genesis, can't you hear it's B-i-o-g-e-n-e-sis, THATS the mechanism...seee. we don't see it now but it HAD to happen ... because we are here therefore i'm right. Given enough time it WILL happen. If you don't believe that your a backwards religious fanatic"


the dating question is one that i've been back and forth on in my own mind.
At this point I think everyone's being a bit premature and assuming to much off of small data points. my reading is limited here though, so I'm open to more info but at this point I see NOTHING scientifically wrong with a young age of the earth and universe.

There are a lot of scientist and researchers of all stripes that are tinkering with various investigations and theories that date the earth and universe as young 6000 years, to infinitely old, to the very honest, unknowable.


i'd be glad to talk to you about it more.
later.

[logroller]

Did i mention ICR, did i quote their statement about Darwinism?
did I only respond to you?


If your talk-in-to-me that's a strawman. putting ideas forth as my view then saying you've knocked them down. c'mon log. again, Fj introduced icr, saying it was logical, I refuted that.


If you looked at what i've post here you'll get an idea of where i'm coming from.
I'll state my position flat out so there's no Confusion.
I do believe in a fairly young earth. And i'll state flatly it's not because of the science.
Clearly. Science repudiates your belief.


"OH No he doesn't want to know science He doesn't care what science says how can we have a real debate if it's all about "faith"!!!"

waaait a minute there hombre.
Wait a minute yourself there hombre; I didn't say that.


If you look at what i've said earlier. I don't think Science has enough data to conclusively make a clear determination of the age of the earth and NO WHERE near enough info to think about dating the Universe.
Young earth theories place the age of earth 6 magnitudes apart from scientific theories. It's an irreconcilable difference. So I don't know what you consider a "clear determination", but the two are worlds apart. If you're to take the position that the earth is 10000 years old, then (im assuming you are aware of dating practices) you've already rejected scientific evidence to the contrary based on error tolerances and any further estimates on the age of the universe, that are likely less precise, would likely be dismissed as well.


or come up with a theory of "everything".
That's exactly what creationists present, no?


Not that long ago early 1900's science thought that the milky way galaxy was THE ONLY galaxy.
I think science sometimes assumes far to much.
Testable assumptions, ie hypotheses, are the foundation of science. Science confirms these assumptions by failing to disprove a hypothesis. Take note: scientists did disprove the lone galaxy assumption. To say science assumes too much is the same as saying that sometimes faith believes far too much--Indeed--Some more than others.


Let me ask you a question?
Ok.

You mentioned Radioisotopes. Ok fine. that's one way to get an estimate of the age of something i suppose. Is it the only way? What if you have other reliable dating methods that give far different ages. Which one do you use
The one that fits your theory the best of course. duh.

First off, was that supposed to be a rhetorical question? (As that was) then dont answer it for me. Of course certain assumptions come into play. If I was dating the age of a package of meat in my fridge, I'd look at the packing date. I wouldn't look for a born on date in an archaeological discovery in ancient Greece. I would choose the tool of measurement that best fits the scale of what I'm trying to measure based on certain assumptions. I wouldn't use radioisotopes to measure the age of the leftovers in my fridge. If I was going to measure the age of a tree, I could use uranium-lead radiometric dating and when I get nearly identical results from a tree I know is ten years-old with one that is in an old growth forest that stands hundreds of feet tall, I'd pursue other dating methods. Like, maybe tree rings or carbon-14 radiometric dating. I wouldn't stop and say, they're the same age--it's scientific fact! Now if I found a petrified stump of a tree, I wouldn't count the rings to determine how long ago that tree lived. I'd have to come up with a different tool.

Let me ask you a question: a petrified log is a rock, ie part of the earth, but it looks just like a tree; was it actually a tree created on day 3 that somehow went back in time to become a rock created on day 1--or-- is it just a tree-like rock?


That exactly what we have here. there's a lot of interesting data out there that folks have collected to try and decipher the past. And lots of extrapolations based on the favorite data points.
WITHOUT integrating any pesky data that conflicts.
Spurious data gets thrown out sometimes. but what you need to reconcile is 6 magnitutdes of difference; thats like the difference between $1 in your pocket and $1,000,000. If you were to reconcile $1 missing out of $1,000,000, that's easy to dismiss as error; the other way around, there's a gross error that can't be reconciled.


However, as the Sherlock Holmes quotes instructs.
Somethings can be ruled out if enough... or key... contradictory evidence is found. Which is why i reject flat out biological Macro evolution.
So, based on the sage advice from a fictional character from a book, you reject mainstream scientific theory. Is there a reason why you didn't post this thread in the conspiracy theory forum, because just having the word science in the title does not a category qualify?


From what i've come to understand it's flat impossible. There is no known mechanism for it to work in theory, or in experiment and it's never been seen. It's a scientific assumption. And even many mainstream scientist are scrambling trying to come up with a new theory.
Hold up. You just quoted Holmes as instructing us that upon finding key contradictory evidence a theory is rejected; yet here you proffer lack of evidence as sufficient to reject a theory. logic: fail.


And there's not even any serious attempts of science to answer how life came from non-life.
At least that's honest.
no hand waving,
"it the process of bio-genesis, can't you hear it's B-i-o-g-e-n-e-sis, THATS the mechanism...seee. we don't see it now but it HAD to happen ... because we are here therefore i'm right. Given enough time it WILL happen. If you don't believe that your a backwards religious fanatic"

is your entire post rhetoric-- Should I just stop responding?
First off, the process is abiogenesis. Google: miller-Urey experiment. They produced amino acids from inorganic chemicals. You seem quite contrite in rejecting a theory based on the fact that what could have taken billions of years hasn't happened over the course of a few generations of research. fine. have it your way. Havent seen everything created in 6 days; nor revelations come to pass; so the bible is to be rejected, wholly.


the dating question is one that i've been back and forth on in my own mind.
At this point I think everyone's being a bit premature and assuming to much off of small data points. my reading is limited here though, so I'm open to more info but at this point I see NOTHING scientifically wrong with a young age of the earth and universe.
Define young. The mainstream young earth crowd place the age between 10000 and 6000 years old. If you're debating the extant reaches of the universe being relatively unknown--no doubt. If you're talking about the intracacies of subatomic particles and quantum relations with the universe-- that's cutting edge science-- of course there's room for doubt. But if you're talking about uranium decay and its usefulness in dating rocks-- that's old news-- it's been tested, a lot, and its a solid assumption from which to base the age of earth. 3000 years ago man didn't have the knowledge to determine such, a master creator knocking it out in six days may have made sense, then, but we've learned otherwise since-- that's the evolution of man.


There are a lot of scientist and researchers of all stripes that are tinkering with various investigations and theories that date the earth and universe as young 6000 years, to infinitely old, to the very honest, unknowable.
unknowable? Why do we need to know? maybe the earth was made 6000 years ago and it happened to be created with rocks of various degrees of decomposition-- it's possible-- but then, why 6000 years? Why not 150 years old? Or last month? Maybe the world hasn't been created at all and its all just an expanse of energy that we interpret here and now as reality but, actually, it's just a continuum wherein time is infinite and we seek to measure it merely for our own pleasure of believing that our very existence is anything but a pittance?



i'd be glad to talk to you about it more.
later.
Maybe we'll know more...later.

[fj1200]

again, Fj introduced icr, saying it was logical, I refuted that.

Actually rs did... and I didn't say it was good logic. :poke:

[revelarts]

i'll be bach.

[revelarts]

I don't have time to do this the way i wanted in a few good chunks.

but lets start with ONE item.
not an end all item but an item to get the ball rolling.

radioisotopes:
you say and it's been taught that radioactive decay rates are consent, nothing really interferes with them, and therefore they are completely reliable.
So going backwards all our dates are right .
If that's true it's hard to argue with, however is it true.

not to long ago a few scientist at Purdue discovered that Solar flares change the decay rates. or that the Sun does in fact in some mysterious way change decay rates.
This was unknown before. and the process is not understood now. but it's been confirmed.

So it looks like the constant is NOT really consent. that there are forces that can and do effect the rate.

http://phys.org/news201795438.html


....Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the cesium might be used to generate random numbers.)
As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates - odd for supposed physical constants.

Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.
Was this fluctuation real, or was it merely a glitch in the equipment used to measure the decay, induced by the change of seasons, with the accompanying changes in temperature and humidity?
"Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Sturrock said.
The sun speaks
On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.
If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.
The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana - meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?...

Read more at: http://phys.org/news201795438.html#jCp



so the consent is not consent. who'd a thunk it?

SO that makes the rate argument a bit less sacred.

the next questions that should be asked are OK by how much. And can anyone guess how much effect various solar flares or sun activity changes the rate. and what of the huge flares in the past.... THAT WE KNOW OF.. would the change be even more drastic, probably? What changes in the suns output has occurred in the past millions years? Do we even have a clue? Do we assume none?

then you have to ask the next question. what else .. that we don't know of could possible effect the rate.
we can't assume that the rates been changed but we can't assume that nothing in the claimed millions of years hasn't. if we are being objective seems to me.
you can say it's unlikely, sure. but not impossible.

http://io9.com/5619954/the-sun-is-changing-the-rate-of-radioactive-decay-and-breaking-the-rules-of-chemistry

[logroller]

I don't have time to do this the way i wanted in a few good chunks.


but lets start with ONE item.
not an end all item but an item to get the ball rolling.


radioisotopes:
you say and it's been taught that radioactive decay rates are consent, nothing really interferes with them, and therefore they are completely reliable.
So going backwards all our dates are right .
If that's true it's hard to argue with, however is it true.


not to long ago a few scientist at Purdue discovered that Solar flares change the decay rates. or that the Sun does in fact in some mysterious way change decay rates.
This was unknown before. and the process is not understood now. but it's been confirmed.


So it looks like the constant is NOT really consent. that there are forces that can and do effect the rate.


http://phys.org/news201795438.html






so the consent is not consent. who'd a thunk it?


SO that makes the rate argument a bit less sacred.


the next questions that should be asked are OK by how much. And can anyone guess how much effect various solar flares or sun activity changes the rate. and what of the huge flares in the past.... THAT WE KNOW OF.. would the change be even more drastic, probably? What changes in the suns output has occurred in the past millions years? Do we even have a clue? Do we assume none?


then you have to ask the next question. what else .. that we don't know of could possible effect the rate.
we can't assume that the rates been changed but we can't assume that nothing in the claimed millions of years hasn't. if we are being objective seems to me.
you can say it's unlikely, sure. but not impossible.


http://io9.com/5619954/the-sun-is-changing-the-rate-of-radioactive-decay-and-breaking-the-rules-of-chemistry


interesting. Gamma ray irradiation or neutrino or some other unknown particle could affect decay....Slightly. take note: the findings indicate slight changes, not major ones, and not even upon the isotopes that are used in dating the earth, uranium/lead, strongtium/cesium; and sure, over the course of millions, if not billions of years, other things could occur that we have no idea about. Other research failed to duplicate the findings
The decay rate of three different radioactive sources 40K, 137Cs and natTh has been measured with NaI and Ge detectors. Data have been analyzed to search for possible variations in coincidence with the two strongest solar flares of the years 2011 and 2012. No significant deviations from standard expectation have been observed, with a few 10-4 sensitivity. As a consequence, we could not find any effect like that recently reported by Jenkins and Fischbach: a few per mil decrease in the decay rate of 54Mn during solar flares in December 2006.http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0970


I'm willing to concede the age could longer or lesser, but the findings were fractions of percent change (few per mil. Even if I grant a magnified 10% change= an entire magnitude, that hardly closes the gap on 6 magnitudes rev. Furthermore, this posit of things happenin over such a huge timescale (millions of years) that we have no idea exactky what coukd affect the change, it still leaves your 10000 year age untenable.

[Voted4Reagan]

Dogma is Hilarious

http://kundaliniandcelltowers.com/dogma-dvd-cover.jpg

[revelarts]

interesting. Gamma ray irradiation or neutrino or some other unknown particle could affect decay....Slightly. take note: the findings indicate slight changes, not major ones, and not even upon the isotopes that are used in dating the earth, uranium/lead, strongtium/cesium; and sure, over the course of millions, if not billions of years, other things could occur that we have no idea about. Other research failed to duplicate the findings http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0970


I'm willing to concede the age could longer or lesser, but the findings were fractions of percent change (few per mil. Even if I grant a magnified 10% change= an entire magnitude, that hardly closes the gap on 6 magnitudes rev. Furthermore, this posit of things happenin over such a huge timescale (millions of years) that we have no idea exactky what coukd affect the change, it still leaves your 10000 year age untenable.

Ok,
so at this point you , gracely i might add, concede that the rate can change, it is NOT a fixed consent as once BELIEVED.

So you'll assume that it's small variation. As the CURRENT evidence suggest. OK, But i hope you'll note that objectively, to hang ALL of the marbles there is an assumption.
What we KNOW is from observation of decay rates that have been done for less than 90 years. To extrapolate it back for Millions of years is an assumption from what we've seen so far. It may be a good one, the best we can do at the moment. But it is just that in the final OBJECTIVE sense.
It's not hard observable science.
Science makes assumptions in various points all the time, no problem.
I just want to us to acknowledge them as we go along.
The mainstream folks often don't acknowledge they pile assumption on assumption to get where they end up.

I want to get back to the dating methods in a minute
.But i want to make an analogy here.
I tried to say this a previous post log and but you replied in a way that,.. i get what your saying.. but i don't think you Caught the way i was framing it.

this Analogy is not perfect and but I hope it makes my point.
If you ever watch the show Fringe you may have seen this.

Ok
3 investigators walked in on this scene. what COULD you conclude?

a hospital.
an man lies dead on the floor. he has grey hair wrinkled skin, long fingernails, sunken features.
the 1st investigator says this man probably is 65 to 80 years old, possible heart attack I'll need to look closer.

the 2nd investigator says wait a minute what's all of this fluid around him it's not blood, look its, it's Amniotic fluid. And what's this cord on his belly button, look there's a Placental on his leg, and the sign in the hall here says "maturity". He's found just outside the room with a dead mother who's DNA matches the placenta's.
I say he's really very very young.

1st investigator your a pitiful crazy religious nut case, your investigation is NOT science. It stupid, did you leave your brains at the doughnut shop? It's obvious that he's OLD and died of old age all the other stuff can be explained, like he walked to the maternity ward Jeez!! And none of that has ANY real bearing on our REAL peer reviewed investigation in to this death.

3rd investigator
why not look at all the evidence. Obviously we've got a unique case here. something we've never seen before and we are learning more about it the more we investigate.
How about we hold off any final scientific judgments until more evidence is in? Follow the trail where it lead rather than fit the facts.

the Analogy breaks at a couple of places but the main one for me is that all of the investigators KNOW what an old man looks like but we do not know what an OLD earth looks like or and OLD Universe.
We have NO former observational evidence to compare it to. we may as well be examining and Alien life form made of stone trying to determine if it's old or young. we have no good point of reference.

For science I like the 3rd investigators approach.
As I said I think the Young earth POV is JUST as Good as the Billions of years folks.
Neither one seem to be able to clear the deck of every piece of evidence, And the evidence is changing all the time, what precious little of it there is to try to determine definitively something in the distant past that cannot be observed.

It people want to build there life on the latest ideas from reli.. i mean science on our origins go ahead, just be ready to change up every 100 years or less.

[Robert A Whit]

3rd investigator
why not look at all the evidence. Obviously we've got a unique case here. something we've never seen before and we are learning more about it the more we investigate.
How about we hold off any final scientific judgments until more evidence is in? Follow the trail where it lead rather than fit the facts.

the Analogy breaks at a couple of places but the main one for me is that all of the investigators KNOW what an old man looks like but we do not know what an OLD earth looks like or and OLD Universe.
We have NO former observational evidence to compare it to. we may as well be examining and Alien life form made of stone trying to determine if it's old or young. we have no good point of reference.

For science I like the 3rd investigators approach.
As I said I think the Young earth POV is JUST as Good as the Billions of years folks.
Neither one seem to be able to clear the deck of every piece of evidence, And the evidence is changing all the time, what precious little of it there is to try to determine definitively something in the distant past that cannot be observed.

Revelarts, apparently you believe that the age of Earth is merely 10,000 years or less.

Have you done any study of geology at all? Have you visited the Grand Canyon where like rings in a tree, you can see earth's age on display in the layers of deposits in the Canyon?

Then we have the Sequoia Giants. Some standing have been on Earth much of your admitted age of earth.

I think the way the Bible is written is more to blame than trying to quote it in any fashion to dispute science.

A good book to read is called the Science of God and the author makes a good case to support the estimated age of Earth at 4.3 billion years or so. And not discount that God created the universe which changes daily. I have in my hand from the rim of the Grand Canyon Kaibob Limestone from the 248 to 286 million year era.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Revelarts, apparently you believe that the age of Earth is merely 10,000 years or less.

Have you done any study of geology at all? Have you visited the Grand Canyon where like rings in a tree, you can see earth's age on display in the layers of deposits in the Canyon?

Then we have the Sequoia Giants. Some standing have been on Earth much of your admitted age of earth.

I think the way the Bible is written is more to blame than trying to quote it in any fashion to dispute science.

A good book to read is called the Science of God and the author makes a good case to support the estimated age of Earth at 4.3 billion years or so. And not discount that God created the universe which changes daily. I have in my hand from the rim of the Grand Canyon Kaibob Limestone from the 248 to 286 million year era.

Rev mentioned 6,000 years in one post. The oldest Sequoia is General Sherman, which is estimated at 2,300–2,700 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Sherman_%28tree%29 That's less than half the 6,000 years Rev mentioned. Hardly 'Much'.

And it's Kaibab, not Kaibob.

[aboutime]

Revelarts, apparently you believe that the age of Earth is merely 10,000 years or less.

Have you done any study of geology at all? Have you visited the Grand Canyon where like rings in a tree, you can see earth's age on display in the layers of deposits in the Canyon?

Then we have the Sequoia Giants. Some standing have been on Earth much of your admitted age of earth.

I think the way the Bible is written is more to blame than trying to quote it in any fashion to dispute science.

A good book to read is called the Science of God and the author makes a good case to support the estimated age of Earth at 4.3 billion years or so. And not discount that God created the universe which changes daily. I have in my hand from the rim of the Grand Canyon Kaibob Limestone from the 248 to 286 million year era.


Robert. Why does it matter what anyone, other than you believes?

Unless you were here to witness the birth of this planet.

You have no credibility to use in convincing anyone, anything.

[Robert A Whit]

Rev mentioned 6,000 years in one post. The oldest Sequoia is General Sherman, which is estimated at 2,300–2,700 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Sherman_%28tree%29 That's less than half the 6,000 years Rev mentioned. Hardly 'Much'.

And it's Kaibab, not Kaibob.

Thank you. I may call on you to do more research.

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

Still, at an estimated 5,062 years, it makes no sense that the Earth is merely 6,000 years.


<tbody>
5,062

Great Basin bristlecone pine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_longaeva)
Pinus longaeva

White Mountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mountains_(California)),California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)

Oldest known currently living tree. Tree cored by Edmund Schulman, age determined by Tom Harlan.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees#cite_note-RMTRR-6)


</tbody>

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=654418#post654418)
Rev mentioned 6,000 years in one post. The oldest Sequoia is General Sherman, which is estimated at 2,300–2,700 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Sherman_%28tree%29 That's less than half the 6,000 years Rev mentioned. Hardly 'Much'.

And it's Kaibab, not Kaibob.



Thank you. I may call on you to do more research.

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

Still, at an estimated 5,062 years, it makes no sense that the Earth is merely 6,000 years.


<tbody>
5,062
Great Basin bristlecone pine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_longaeva)
Pinus longaeva
White Mountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mountains_(California)),California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)
Oldest known currently living tree. Tree cored by Edmund Schulman, age determined by Tom Harlan.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees#cite_note-RMTRR-6)

</tbody>

You just claimed that it makes no sense that a tree could be 5,062 years old if the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You might want to review 1st grade math, dumb ass.:laugh2:

Interesting, and completely typical, how you gloss over your own completely incorrect comment about the Sequoias and move the goal posts to different trees.

Dumb ass.

[cadet]

All ya'll are crazy. The universe was created 5 minutes ago as it is, with all your memories of a fake past.

[aboutime]

All ya'll are crazy. The universe was created 5 minutes ago as it is, with all your memories of a fake past.


Put the bottle down. Or light up another cadet. Of course we're all crazy. Why else would we be here?

[Robert A Whit]

You just claimed that it makes no sense that a tree could be 5,062 years old if the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You might want to review 1st grade math, dumb ass.:laugh2:

Interesting, and completely typical, how you gloss over your own completely incorrect comment about the Sequoias and move the goal posts to different trees.

Dumb ass.

Seems your case is that it is 6000 years old. I plan to see you prove that.

Maybe you think Earth was cool when it was created. I don't believe that one bit.

Were you a careful reader, your hatred for me just might cool down. By the way, I believe where the oldest tree is was once ocean bottom. Factor that in please.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=654447#post654447)
You just claimed that it makes no sense that a tree could be 5,062 years old if the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You might want to review 1st grade math, dumb ass.:laugh2:

Interesting, and completely typical, how you gloss over your own completely incorrect comment about the Sequoias and move the goal posts to different trees.

Dumb ass.



Seems your case is that it is 6000 years old. I plan to see you prove that.

Maybe you think Earth was cool when it was created. I don't believe that one bit.

Were you a careful reader, your hatred for me just might cool down. By the way, I believe where the oldest tree is was once ocean bottom. Factor that in please.

Point 1... Please show me where I said that I think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

My 'case' is that you made a specific comment about a specific type of tree... I proved you wrong... and you immediately mosed the goalposts to different trees. EVERY time someone proves you wrong in a comment, you attempt to move the goalposts to avoid looking like a complete smacked ass.

And you fail every time.

[Robert A Whit]

Point 1... Please show me where I said that I think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

My 'case' is that you made a specific comment about a specific type of tree... I proved you wrong... and you immediately mosed the goalposts to different trees. EVERY time someone proves you wrong in a comment, you attempt to move the goalposts to avoid looking like a complete smacked ass.

And you fail every time.

Logic based on your remarks reference point 1.

Next, just what did I say wrong about the Sequoia again? Read the post again then come back when you finish your research. Stop being a m**her F*kr.

You seem to dog my posts praying you can do this you call smack ass. I come to exchange views with others and pick up new information.

Why is that?

For instance, when other posters speak what I say, you don't charge after them. You are kind to them.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=654467#post654467)
Point 1... Please show me where I said that I think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

My 'case' is that you made a specific comment about a specific type of tree... I proved you wrong... and you immediately mosed the goalposts to different trees. EVERY time someone proves you wrong in a comment, you attempt to move the goalposts to avoid looking like a complete smacked ass.

And you fail every time.



Logic based on your remarks reference point 1.

Next, just what did I say wrong about the Sequoia again? Read the post again then come back when you finish your research. Stop being a m**her F*kr.

You seem to dog my posts praying you can do this you call smack ass. I come to exchange views with others and pick up new information.

Why is that?

For instance, when other posters speak what I say, you don't charge after them. You are kind to them.

Your logic fails you, as always. I references another posters comment. I made no comment of support, nor did I comment a lack of support. I offered no opinion on the matter. I simply pointed out your typical fallacy. Now, to avoid looking like a fool, you create a strawman argument that I believed the Earth is only 6,000 years old. FAIL.


The Sequoia ... your comment...

...Then we have the Sequoia Giants. Some standing have been on Earth much of your admitted age of earth...

Since the other poster mentioned 6,000 years, and I proved the oldest Sequoia is less than half that, your comment is incorrect. 'Much', is NOT less than half.

Again, you FAIL.

[Robert A Whit]

Stop moving goal posts.

Much does not mean over half. It means much. And you validated my statement it is much.

And I said it seems you believe in the 6000 years theory not that you do. Again, wake up.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Stop moving goal posts.

Much does not mean over half. It means much. And you validated my statement it is much.

And I said it seems you believe in the 6000 years theory not that you do. Again, wake up.

the depth of your stupidity is staggering.

[Robert A Whit]

the depth of your stupidity is staggering.

Actually as you look again into the mirror, you are self describing yourself.

I asked you for proof that AT was correct and you tried to steer me to his two lying posts.

I have long seen you as perhaps the most retarded of all posters especially socially. And your intellect is, just above average.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Actually as you look again into the mirror, you are self describing yourself.

I asked you for proof that AT was correct and you tried to steer me to his two lying posts.

I have long seen you as perhaps the most retarded of all posters especially socially. And your intellect is, just above average.

A... wrong thread dumb ass.

B... The two posts I 'tried to steer you to' in the Wiccan thread, were the ones where I asked him what exactly you did. You whined that no one was asking him for proof, and I had asked twice. You're so fucking stupid, you can't even keep up with the shit you start!:laugh2:

As for my intellect, I am quite certain it's superior to yours.

[logroller]

Ok,
so at this point you , gracely i might add, concede that the rate can change, it is NOT a fixed consent as once BELIEVED.


So you'll assume that it's small variation. As the CURRENT evidence suggest. OK, But i hope you'll note that objectively, to hang ALL of the marbles there is an assumption.
What we KNOW is from observation of decay rates that have been done for less than 90 years. To extrapolate it back for Millions of years is an assumption from what we've seen so far. It may be a good one, the best we can do at the moment. But it is just that in the final OBJECTIVE sense.
It's not hard observable science.
Science makes assumptions in various points all the time, no problem.
I just want to us to acknowledge them as we go along.
The mainstream folks often don't acknowledge they pile assumption on assumption to get where they end up.


I want to get back to the dating methods in a minute
.But i want to make an analogy here.
I tried to say this a previous post log and but you replied in a way that,.. i get what your saying.. but i don't think you Caught the way i was framing it.


this Analogy is not perfect and but I hope it makes my point.
If you ever watch the show Fringe you may have seen this.


Ok
3 investigators walked in on this scene. what COULD you conclude?


a hospital.
an man lies dead on the floor. he has grey hair wrinkled skin, long fingernails, sunken features.
the 1st investigator says this man probably is 65 to 80 years old, possible heart attack I'll need to look closer.


the 2nd investigator says wait a minute what's all of this fluid around him it's not blood, look its, it's Amniotic fluid. And what's this cord on his belly button, look there's a Placental on his leg, and the sign in the hall here says "maturity". He's found just outside the room with a dead mother who's DNA matches the placenta's.
I say he's really very very young.


1st investigator your a pitiful crazy religious nut case, your investigation is NOT science. It stupid, did you leave your brains at the doughnut shop? It's obvious that he's OLD and died of old age all the other stuff can be explained, like he walked to the maternity ward Jeez!! And none of that has ANY real bearing on our REAL peer reviewed investigation in to this death.


3rd investigator
why not look at all the evidence. Obviously we've got a unique case here. something we've never seen before and we are learning more about it the more we investigate.
How about we hold off any final scientific judgments until more evidence is in? Follow the trail where it lead rather than fit the facts.


the Analogy breaks at a couple of places but the main one for me is that all of the investigators KNOW what an old man looks like but we do not know what an OLD earth looks like or and OLD Universe.
We have NO former observational evidence to compare it to. we may as well be examining and Alien life form made of stone trying to determine if it's old or young. we have no good point of reference.


For science I like the 3rd investigators approach.
As I said I think the Young earth POV is JUST as Good as the Billions of years folks.
Neither one seem to be able to clear the deck of every piece of evidence, And the evidence is changing all the time, what precious little of it there is to try to determine definitively something in the distant past that cannot be observed.


It people want to build there life on the latest ideas from reli.. i mean science on our origins go ahead, just be ready to change up every 100 years or less.
that analogy made no sense to me. I get the feeling you're either confused or intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue that, in no way, shape or form, is there a singular shred of evidence of support for the young earth theory.
Young earth is completely unsupported by any data. in fact, available data renders it a complete fabrication. sure, maybe there's error in radiometric dating, ill admit as much-- such error is recorded and varies upon differing isotopes-- but its firmly based upon repeatedly tested and observed data; not hoodoo theory with absolutely no observational evidence, as young earth is. You try hard to dance around the glaring fact that there's six magnitudes you need excuse away; left only to the argument "science isn't perfect; therefore its not to be trusted"

[Robert A Whit]

that analogy made no sense to me. I get the feeling you're either confused or intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue that, in no way, shape or form, is there a singular shred of evidence of support for the young earth theory.
Young earth is completely unsupported by any data. in fact, available data renders it a complete fabrication. sure, maybe there's error in radiometric dating, ill admit as much-- such error is recorded and varies upon differing isotopes-- but its firmly based upon repeatedly tested and observed data; not hoodoo theory with absolutely no observational evidence, as young earth is. You try hard to dance around the glaring fact that there's six magnitudes you need excuse away; left only to the argument "science isn't perfect; therefore its not to be trusted"

I entirely agree with Logroller. There are many more ways to date than just radiocarbon dating.

But those who think God did not create the universe can't explain how it happened.

I believe he created it around 15.3 billion years ago.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nobody knows and nobody can prove how old the earth is . Nobody knows or can prove how old the universe is. I've always thought the immense time span given for earth's age was given to allow for the theory of Evolution. Eons of million year time spans are the magic elixir that allows for evolution. Instead of magic fairy dust they used incomprehensible lengths of time to allow for the changes in earth and its creatures. Since nobody knows or can prove earth's age I'm going with somewhere between 7 to 11 million years . I always liked those numbers and won a lot money with them......:laugh:--Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Nobody knows and nobody can prove how old the earth is . Nobody knows or can prove how old the universe is. I've always thought the immense time span given for earth's age was given to allow for the theory of Evolution. Eons of million year time spans are the magic elixir that allows for evolution. Instead of magic fairy dust they used incomprehensible lengths of time to allow for the changes in earth and its creatures. Since nobody knows or can prove earth's age I'm going with somewhere between 7 to 11 million years . I always liked those numbers and won a lot money with them......:laugh:--Tyr

I dunno Ty. I have more confidence in the math of the creation of the universe than I have in global climate change. When you get a chance, take a look at some good photos of the Grand Canyon and realize how many years it takes to pack down an inch of sediment and then figure out how long it took to first make that canyon and how much longer it took a river to cut it out. They say you can see almost back to the beginning of earth time in that canyon if you know what to look for. All i know is it is very very old and not 6,000 or 10,000 years old.

[Voted4Reagan]

that analogy made no sense to me. I get the feeling you're either confused or intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue that, in no way, shape or form, is there a singular shred of evidence of support for the young earth theory.
Young earth is completely unsupported by any data. in fact, available data renders it a complete fabrication. sure, maybe there's error in radiometric dating, ill admit as much-- such error is recorded and varies upon differing isotopes-- but its firmly based upon repeatedly tested and observed data; not hoodoo theory with absolutely no observational evidence, as young earth is. You try hard to dance around the glaring fact that there's six magnitudes you need excuse away; left only to the argument "science isn't perfect; therefore its not to be trusted"

The Young Earth is scientifically refuted by radio-Isotope dating. It is the realm of fanatical born again Christians that according to biblical lineage the earth is just around 6800 years old.

Personally I am well aware it is BILLIONS of years old.

Let those who believe in that theory believe it... It isnt mine.

But they're entitled to it.... however wrong it is....

[revelarts]

that analogy made no sense to me. I get the feeling you're either confused or intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue that, in no way, shape or form, is there a singular shred of evidence of support for the young earth theory.
Young earth is completely unsupported by any data. in fact, available data renders it a complete fabrication. sure, maybe there's error in radiometric dating, ill admit as much-- such error is recorded and varies upon differing isotopes-- but its firmly based upon repeatedly tested and observed data; not hoodoo theory with absolutely no observational evidence, as young earth is. You try hard to dance around the glaring fact that there's six magnitudes you need excuse away; left only to the argument "science isn't perfect; therefore its not to be trusted"

Hard to see it if you don't look for it.

But I as i said, Just as Good.
what you say is, Look at the radiometric dating it's old. or Look at the grey hair and wrinkles he's old!
At this point I've only pointed out that rapid or slower aging is a real option.

As far as things being younger than they appear. well I won't force it to the less than 10,000 years at this point. but lets see what might give us an idea that things aren't as old as many claim.

red shift = distance and time, not so much
the claim that redshift is an accurate measure of distance and expanding universe has been proven false, not acknowledge to be so but , the facts are there, 1 example is a star cluster, NGC 7603, with 2 galaxies connected by a particle cloud. what's the problem?
One is red shifted so that it appears much older than the galaxy it's connected too. by 7million or so and further investigation shows that 2 quasars within the cluster off by 7 to 11 times.

this shows that red shift is NOT, at least in all cases, an indicator of distance and expansion. And basically throws a lot of calculations in the trash. If you can't know for sure if the red shift is only an indicator of speed/distance/motion how can you make predictions about any stellar bodies with it.

the expansion of the universe ideas and the big bang are based on the discovery of red shift and it's singular interpretation.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050211thirtyyears.htm

dinosaurs = old stuff , maybe not
One recent item that shows the geologic ages may not be a long as supposed are dinosaurs.
IF you look at a typical geologic column you'll see that Dinosaurs All went extinct 65 millions years ago with a huge extinction. putting them in the MESOZOIC era. Now when geologist look at rock formation if they see a dinosaurs bone they KNOW the strata are at least 65 mil + years old. they use the fossil to date the rocks.
In a previous thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37627-Dino-tissue-Carbon-14-dated-to-less-than-40-000-years-Censored-conference-report&highlight=dinosaurs) i mentioned that people have found tissue in dinosaur bone that is carbon dated at 40,000 years old. DOH! With that date it would put dinosaurs in the tail end of the the Cenozoic very near us. Inferring the strata it was found in was not 65 million plus years old. If you use a typical dating method, the rocks are as old as the fossils.
Ok 40,000 is still old, by my standard you'll say, but that's the outer range of the test.
the other factor to consider is that that the tissue should NOT have survived decay for more than 1000 years or so, much less 65 million years.

see a little umbilical cord here?

[Robert A Whit]

Revelarts

Advice for you

Please, do yourself a favor and end this argument that Earth is 10,000 years or less. I don't know where you live but I can sure point out areas where one can see that the Earth is not 10,000 years old or younger. Notice how below the age is still 68 million years old.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

Neatly dressed in blue Capri pants and a sleeveless top, long hair flowing over her bare shoulders, Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab, her face lit only by a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d,” she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited.”
After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.”


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz2aMDhYH31
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=cd5NqsI_0r3Qffab7jrHtB&u=SmithsonianMag)

[logroller]

I dunno Ty. I have more confidence in the math of the creation of the universe than I have in global climate change. When you get a chance, take a look at some good photos of the Grand Canyon and realize how many years it takes to pack down an inch of sediment and then figure out how long it took to first make that canyon and how much longer it took a river to cut it out. They say you can see almost back to the beginning of earth time in that canyon if you know what to look for. All i know is it is very very old and not 6,000 or 10,000 years old.
There's good reason to place more value on theories on the age of earth than anthropomorphic global climate change; the age of earth isn't unprecedented. Were I to say that the earths climate changes, that's proven by science to be true--it has changed, multiple times throughout history-- but proving that man has done so is dissimilar in that this would be the first time that man has done so and there is no control from which to gauge the variables of man's action.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=654522#post654522)
I dunno Ty. I have more confidence in the math of the creation of the universe than I have in global climate change. When you get a chance, take a look at some good photos of the Grand Canyon and realize how many years it takes to pack down an inch of sediment and then figure out how long it took to first make that canyon and how much longer it took a river to cut it out. They say you can see almost back to the beginning of earth time in that canyon if you know what to look for. All i know is it is very very old and not 6,000 or 10,000 years old.


There's good reason to place more value on theories on the age of earth than anthropomorphic global climate change; the age of earth isn't unprecedented. Were I to say that the earths climate changes, that's proven by science to be true--it has changed, multiple times throughout history-- but proving that man has done so is dissimilar in that this would be the first time that man has done so and there is no control from which to gauge the variables of man's action.

Not only that, but we must know these people come up with their claims. First if they claim they understand not one climate, but thousands of them, how they interact and what are the causes, they are shooting blanks. I learned a lot from Professor Lindzen and his papers.

You know, as flexible as Earth is, warmer eras improve plant life in some areas and may make deserts larger too. Humans adapt. If we won't adapt, we will have many problems.

[logroller]

Hard to see it if you don't look for it.

But I as i said, Just as Good.
what you say is, Look at the radiometric dating it's old. or Look at the grey hair and wrinkles he's old!
At this point I've only pointed out that rapid or slower aging is a real option.

6 magnitudes rev, that's not a little slowing. If that inspector said this guy has wrinkles and grey hairs: he's a million years-old--that's a real option-- you'd have a point. And if I took a hundred or a thousand samples of persons with wrinkles and grey hairs, I'm guessin the average age of such persons would indeed be accurate. You can't base an entire theory on an anomaly.

[revelarts]

6 magnitudes rev, that's not a little slowing. If that inspector said this guy has wrinkles and grey hairs: he's a million years-old--that's a real option-- you'd have a point. And if I took a hundred or a thousand samples of persons with wrinkles and grey hairs, I'm guessin the average age of such persons would indeed be accurate. You can't base an entire theory on an anomaly.
A new born verses a 70 year old is an order of magnitude physiologically. it's depends on your perspective.
And if your honest you have to explain the anomaly. you can't just dismiss it with a wave of a hand.
it has to be explained, corrected or integrated into the age. You can not claim that ONE form of evidence 'over and over is the ONLY evidence that matters.

If you have the DNA of an accuse murderer and have it from various places at the crime scene and on the victim from 100's of places. But someone finds video surveillance of the accused in different country at the time of the murder. All your DNA evidence is great but your conclusion is possibly mistaken.
It's does no good to bang the table and say DNA evidence says he's guilty, DNA is good science!

no one is saying DNA is bad science just that it doesn't tell the whole story.

BTW. I've got more items to come...
tomorrow

[revelarts]

one for the road

Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx fossilhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18882-soft-tissue-remnants-discovered-in-%20archaeopteryx-fossil.html#.UfVcG1OTp5s




It boasts more than just... impressions of long-gone feathers. One of the world's most famous fossils... Archaeopteryx – also contains remnants of the feathers' soft tissue. ... "It's amazing that that chemistry is preserved after 150 million years." ... palaeontologists had long thought that only impressions remained. [But] "There is soft-tissue chemistry preserved (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11591-tyrannosaurus-rex-fossil-gives-up-precious-protein.html) in places that people didn't expect it," says [geochemist Roy] Wogelius. [RSR: Not enough biological material was discovered to call it tissue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_%28biology%29) but only remnants of tissue.]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/05/1001569107.full.pdf


tissue preserved over 150 million years...
http://www.humorhound.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/orly-animated-gif-baby.gif

[logroller]

A new born verses a 70 year old is an order of magnitude physiologically. it's depends on your perspective.
And if your honest you have to explain the anomaly. you can't just dismiss it with a wave of a hand.
it has to be explained, corrected or integrated into the age. You can not claim that ONE form of evidence 'over and over is the ONLY evidence that matters.

If you have the DNA of an accuse murderer and have it from various places at the crime scene and on the victim from 100's of places. But someone finds video surveillance of the accused in different country at the time of the murder. All your DNA evidence is great but your conclusion is possibly mistaken.
It's does no good to bang the table and say DNA evidence says he's guilty, DNA is good science!

no one is saying DNA is bad science just that it doesn't tell the whole story.

BTW. I've got more items to come...
tomorrow
Not an order of magnitude, rev, six. And the anomaly, as it were, of variable decomposition rate isn't even an entire magnitude, a few per mil is a fraction of a percent that actually Is within he standard precision error reported by many other findings. Not to mention, the age calculations aren't inferred from just one isotope, but many different isotopes of varied decomposition rates, even different isotopes of even the same element found within certain mineral matrices. Thu don't jus take one singular occurrence and call it good. In fact, the testing continues; but even so, when a colossal upheaval of scientific findings is measured in fractions of percent over a billion years, its not hard to conclusively rule out earth age in thousands of years and, thus presuming that the earth is a part of the universe, it would naturally follow that the universe is older still-- this much is known as well as anything can be.
As for red shift research and the expanding universe theory, I'm willing to debate this further but I feel its dubious in the interest of debate if an X thousand year old old earth theory is premised to be as good as mainstream old earth theories-- as the former requires a complete disregard for scientific findings-- so too, then, would any observable data indicating an expanding universe be subject to disregard. If we're to reject the inferred theories that explain the observed based upon a belief in the unobservable, of what value is there to be found in researching the matter? I don't see a point in debating against skepticism; skeptism, like hope, springs eternal.

[Missileman]

one for the road

Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx fossil

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18882-soft-tissue-remnants-discovered-in-%20archaeopteryx-fossil.html#.UfVcG1OTp5s





http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/05/1001569107.full.pdf


tissue preserved over 150 million years...
http://www.humorhound.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/orly-animated-gif-baby.gif

I suggest you read that pdf file a bit more closely. There was no tissue recovered from fossil in question. They were able to identify some of the chemical residues that were originally part of the soft tissues 150 million years ago.

[red state]

Robert A Whit, I'm glad you FINALLY dropped the Sequoia thing) you should know to quit while you're ahead....in fact, if those like you, who refuse to see other evidence or accept other theories can not provide an EXACT dates or a missing links from any so-called "evolved" life forms, I suggest you pipe down before showing any further ignorance (as with the Sequoia). Marcus never stated that he believed as I but he does have an open mind and a sense of logic that your seem to be clouded from because of your attempt to disprove someone simply because their THEORY threatens YOUR theory.


Rev, you made a GREAT analogy with the three investigators!!! Made perfect sense unless one is void of logic or open-thinking.


Another comment or reference is also correct and the statement below has lost the debate to those who stand with "FLAT EARTH" teachings without consideration of OTHER theories. Through even the slightest bit of "open mindedness" the statement below should stand in this "debate" that seems to have only the REV actually debating:


{maybe the earth was made 6000 years ago and it happened to be created with rocks of various degrees of decomposition-- it's possible--}


Why stop at 6000 or 10000 or 1000000000000000000000000000000000 years? I'm sure that an eternal God made NOTHING prematurely or at any particular age. He mad MAN (not a boy or babe) and I'm sure the Earth and Sea could very well have been made MATURE and at a ripe old age or as young as God deemed "perfect". Certainly, some of science (from both sides) are crude and not without faults or disputable evidence. It is those who would LIMIT the expansion of THEORY who are dangerous to the world and the education of our children. They do this out of fear, hatred to religion and plain ignorance.


Romans CH1 KJB~
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.



22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Science is, after all, a systematic, TESTABLE explanation about the universe. I see know testable explanation or evidence to prove or disprove ANY of the THEORIES out there and to close your mind and call someone WRONG simply because they have evidence that contradict what burst certain people's bubble. Many people's bubble was busted when those far traveled ships from years ago didn't drop off the 'edge' of the planet. They weren't necessarily ignorant because that was all that they had been taught. But for those to attack the evidence to other THEORIES without providing proof to argue their point (successfully) is to be among the ignorant, hate-filled, puppets who believe only what they are told. At no point did I see REV attack your belief but I have repeatedly read his posts as legitimate, logical and fact filled DEBATE.


This is a waste of time...just as the last thread that dealt with OTHER theories was a waste of time through attacks and the ignorant, close-minded attacks that come from the Flat Earthers who chose to stay within certain boundaries/teachings/beliefs for fear of dropping off of the Earth. Go further....I promise the only thing will happen is an expansion of the mind and spirit. The truth is out there but truth is not in unproven and consistently disproven and weakening theories from the more radical among our "sciences" who taught that some are beneath others. These were dangerous "scientists" who PUSHED and bullied their hatreds and stupidities as science (rather than prove their THEORIES). In know way should we exclude other theories while indoctrination our children to other THEORIES that was birthed from what appears to be dangerous, and even radical, individuals.


Fossil record reveal complex fossilized life that seems to suddenly appear. Besides this, there are major gaps that have never connected one fossilized “species" to another. They are simply a different species. Even Darwin acknowledged that (IF) his THEORY were true, it would require millions (if not BILLIONS) of transitional forms as they evolved from one origin to a more developed state of evolution. He believed these "missing links" to his problem in accrediting his THEORY would be found in fossil records....especially as technology "caught up to" his THEORY. There hasn't been and breakthroughs to prove his THEORY as of yet (even with our highly advanced methods of today).
Should our children be taught to consider the three "investigators" as REV so masterly depicted in his analogy.....the answer is YES! When considering ALL the variables, who knows, we may actually come to some conclusion as to our ORIGINS.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymF7ySlpRZ4

Who is to say that there is or isn't Scientific proof of evolution, young earth, old earth, an intelligent alien designer or a creative and artistic GOD........yet. We simply do not KNOW at this time.
If a bridge is out, are we good citizens/neighbors by remaining silent and allow others speed toward certain doom or should we warn them of the destruction at the end of their way....

[revelarts]

Hey...
I've been wanting to get back to this thread FOREVER but i just don't have time to do it Justice.
For those interested in looking into the why Evolution is piss poor science and basically dead.
why the big bang is in trouble and full of holes black and otherwise.
why the Earth is more than likely MUCH younger than many "know" it is.

One really great place to look and listen
is -real science radio- they sum up and link to various science issues along this line.
http://kgov.com/real-science-radio

For the Soft tissue in Dinosaur info they have on of the best, if not the best, pages on it.

the soft tissue is still UNEXPLAINABLE in the long timeline. And really does just disprove the 65million plus ages.
there's just no way soft tissue could survive for 65, 100, 150 million years. the molecular decay alone would turn the bio structures into dust. but they are so intact some researchers have been able to sequence some dinosaur proteins DNA.

there' NO way it's that old. and they are finding it in more and more dino bones. since they now know it's there and are looking for it.

the UNIVERSAL denials are over. Everyone KNEW that the tissue that old COULD NOT survive but now all of the alternative explanations have fallen FLAT and they are left saying. Well it's an "ANOMALY" (found over and over )or just scathing their heads.
as i've listened to some of the interviews with the discovers . I hear the disbelief in thier own words.
"So this is 65 million years old. " said with a question mark, rather than a period.

look if you want to follow the science let the science speak don't ASSUME that it MUST be old when the evidence says it's NOT.
But if the idea of an old earth is DOGMA then don't let the facts bug you. just keep on believing. you don't have to have evidence from dinosaurs. Believe what you want.

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue


someone earlier in the thread mention the rock layers as Proof.
well that's not true either.
in the Grand Canyon even there, there are a supposed 100s of millions of years of missing strata.
but zero evidence that those layers were washed away basically there's no evidence they were there.
its as if someone stolen 100 miillion years + and laid the the next hundred on top without leaving a trace.
an anomaly? maybe an alternative explanation fits the facts better.
And if you look at the mount Saint Helen Volcano and several other events like it. scientist have witnessed several hundreds of layers of sediment laid down over a matter of days and months. and seen a 4 story canyons craved in days. and miles of trees laid down FLAT, creating a bed of organic material. then covered with earth and stone. Tree uprooted stuck strait up in a new lake and then covered with layers of earth.
Catastrophe is an alternate explanation, that's been OBSERVED that causes structure like the grand cannon and other formations.

Like i said it more to it than i'll be able to really discus the way i'd like but if your interest please take a look at the links.

Log you mentioned the radiocarbon dating a few times as your gold standard.
I mention one area where it's be shown that the decay is NOT steady. to what degree is still an open question. the observation are brand new.
there are other issues with the method itself that make it suspect. but there is research that's investigating the creation of new radioactive material in the earth crust.
And one thing to consider, the presence of Carbon 14 in things like Diamonds that should be billions(?) of years old.
carbon 14 has a half life of 5700 years. If the whole earth was made of carbon 14 there would be None left in 50,000 years. But carbon 14 has been found in things that are said to be MUCH older. with NO good explanation as to why.
It's an Anomaly! or maybe the assumption of an old earth is just wrong.
Shouldn't the science answer the question. just asserting that it's old is not good enough. ignoring anomalies is not good science. it's DOGMA.

i can honestly say what I'd like to find. can "real" scientist do the same. and still report the facts without fear of losing tenure?
i'm not willing to make stuff up or ignore facts. But i not going to lose a job, a grant or anything.
But i'm telling you honestly, it horribly bad for the evolutionist.
and mighty shaky for the old earth crowd.

the big bangers are adding more epicycles and changing the numbers with every new observation
and the things they EXPECT to see often isn't showing up. but they still claim everything PROVES their points.... As soon as they do a recalculations... They had to make big changes to the numbers for the amount of DARK mater and DARK energy a few weeks ago.

And the Galaxies they EXPECTED to be young and unformed, when they got a good look, because they are closer to the big bang in time, look just like our galaxy and others, mature. This was unexpected ... BUT of course it stills PROVES the big bang, even thought the predictions were flat wrong.
....
Comets should have all disappeared by now if the Solar system is as old as expected but..
it's Just an Anomaly. Scientist BELIEVE there's a Cloud out there somewhere that feeding comets its Unobserved... but it GOT to be there. because WE KNOW the solar system is X years old.
...
we don't go from fish to man in the womb,
There are no vestigial organs,
There is NO Junk DNA , evolutionist were wrong again, again and again
etc etc etc

....
the fossil in China show that the 5 major types of animals basically came out of NOWHERE. and show little to no variation.
....
there are birds found with dinosaur bones and in dinosaur strata,
yes Birds. penguins, owls, flamingos and more. also squirrels and wolf like animals

...........
Like i said i've wanted to really get into this but
If your at all interested You might want to seriously take a look at the links above and do some exploring.

I've got some project coming i can't be around to comment though i'd LOVE to.

God lead you all.

[Missileman]

Hey...
I've been wanting to get back to this thread FOREVER but i just don't have time to do it Justice.
For those interested in looking into the why Evolution is piss poor science and basically dead.
why the big bang is in trouble and full of holes black and otherwise.
why the Earth is more than likely MUCH younger than many "know" it is.

One really great place to look and listen
is -real science radio- they sum up and link to various science issues along this line.
http://kgov.com/real-science-radio

For the Soft tissue in Dinosaur info they have on of the best, if not the best, pages on it.

the soft tissue is still UNEXPLAINABLE in the long timeline. And really does just disprove the 65million plus ages.
there's just no way soft tissue could survive for 65, 100, 150 million years. the molecular decay alone would turn the bio structures into dust. but they are so intact some researchers have been able to sequence some dinosaur proteins DNA.

there' NO way it's that old. and they are finding it in more and more dino bones. since they now know it's there and are looking for it.

the UNIVERSAL denials are over. Everyone KNEW that the tissue that old COULD NOT survive but now all of the alternative explanations have fallen FLAT and they are left saying. Well it's an "ANOMALY" (found over and over )or just scathing their heads.
as i've listened to some of the interviews with the discovers . I hear the disbelief in thier own words.
"So this is 65 million years old. " said with a question mark, rather than a period.

look if you want to follow the science let the science speak don't ASSUME that it MUST be old when the evidence says it's NOT.
But if the idea of an old earth is DOGMA then don't let the facts bug you. just keep on believing. you don't have to have evidence from dinosaurs. Believe what you want.

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue


someone earlier in the thread mention the rock layers as Proof.
well that's not true either.
in the Grand Canyon even there, there are a supposed 100s of millions of years of missing strata.
but zero evidence that those layers were washed away basically there's no evidence they were there.
its as if someone stolen 100 miillion years + and laid the the next hundred on top without leaving a trace.
an anomaly? maybe an alternative explanation fits the facts better.
And if you look at the mount Saint Helen Volcano and several other events like it. scientist have witnessed several hundreds of layers of sediment laid down over a matter of days and months. and seen a 4 story canyons craved in days. and miles of trees laid down FLAT, creating a bed of organic material. then covered with earth and stone. Tree uprooted stuck strait up in a new lake and then covered with layers of earth.
Catastrophe is an alternate explanation, that's been OBSERVED that causes structure like the grand cannon and other formations.

Like i said it more to it than i'll be able to really discus the way i'd like but if your interest please take a look at the links.

Log you mentioned the radiocarbon dating a few times as your gold standard.
I mention one area where it's be shown that the decay is NOT steady. to what degree is still an open question. the observation are brand new.
there are other issues with the method itself that make it suspect. but there is research that's investigating the creation of new radioactive material in the earth crust.
And one thing to consider, the presence of Carbon 14 in things like Diamonds that should be billions(?) of years old.
carbon 14 has a half life of 5700 years. If the whole earth was made of carbon 14 there would be None left in 50,000 years. But carbon 14 has been found in things that are said to be MUCH older. with NO good explanation as to why.
It's an Anomaly! or maybe the assumption of an old earth is just wrong.
Shouldn't the science answer the question. just asserting that it's old is not good enough. ignoring anomalies is not good science. it's DOGMA.

i can honestly say what I'd like to find. can "real" scientist do the same. and still report the facts without fear of losing tenure?
i'm not willing to make stuff up or ignore facts. But i not going to lose a job, a grant or anything.
But i'm telling you honestly, it horribly bad for the evolutionist.
and mighty shaky for the old earth crowd.

the big bangers are adding more epicycles and changing the numbers with every new observation
and the things they EXPECT to see often isn't showing up. but they still claim everything PROVES their points.... As soon as they do a recalculations... They had to make big changes to the numbers for the amount of DARK mater and DARK energy a few weeks ago.

And the Galaxies they EXPECTED to be young and unformed, when they got a good look, because they are closer to the big bang in time, look just like our galaxy and others, mature. This was unexpected ... BUT of course it stills PROVES the big bang, even thought the predictions were flat wrong.
....
Comets should have all disappeared by now if the Solar system is as old as expected but..
it's Just an Anomaly. Scientist BELIEVE there's a Cloud out there somewhere that feeding comets its Unobserved... but it GOT to be there. because WE KNOW the solar system is X years old.
...
we don't go from fish to man in the womb,
There are no vestigial organs,
There is NO Junk DNA , evolutionist were wrong again, again and again
etc etc etc

....
the fossil in China show that the 5 major types of animals basically came out of NOWHERE. and show little to no variation.
....
there are birds found with dinosaur bones and in dinosaur strata,
yes Birds. penguins, owls, flamingos and more. also squirrels and wolf like animals

...........
Like i said i've wanted to really get into this but
If your at all interested You might want to seriously take a look at the links above and do some exploring.

I've got some project coming i can't be around to comment though i'd LOVE to.

God lead you all.

Post #56 burns your strawman about soft tissue to the ground.

[revelarts]

Post #56 burns your strawman about soft tissue to the ground.

In the excerpt i mention exactly what it was, but that's not the only place where residue and FULL BLOWN soft tissue has been discovered Missile.

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ji2cvuJ1mYg?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

"it's impossible" 65 million years old tissue.
"Blood vessels, and intact cells.."
"...find it ... over and over and over... and 80 million years old..."

there facts were ATTACKED.. in science, say it ain't so

Notice how the option of the bone NOT being 65 million 85 mil + years old is not even considered...
Why is that.
Notice in the 1st part of the interview she says she was AFRAID when she 1st found what she found? why should someone be AFRAID in science? Shouldn't she be excited that she'll "get a noble prize!" for challenging conventional scientific concepts.
But her reaction was FEAR.
dogma?

but what's been found so far.

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050324/050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.jpg
TEX REX "65-million" Year Old T. rex Soft Tissue:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/photos/?c=y&articleID=10021606
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?onsite_source=smithsonianmag.com&onsite_medium=internal&onsite_campaign=photogalleries&onsite_content=Dinosaur%20Shocker


here's the problem with the dates, why its "impossible".
Biological material CANNOT survive more than 1million years, not EVEN 1 million years.

The research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long original biological can survive.
When you cut you finger they tell you put it in ICE immediately so they can reattach it BEFORE the natural process of decay begins to break it down.
Natural chemical reactions from within the cells ALONE begin to decompose the tissues.
not to mention
bacteria, fungus, radioactivity , heat, cold, microorganisms. they've done eperiments sealing dead lobesters and other creatures in jars in salt and fresh water with mud. it only takes days for the tissues to decompose.
some scienctist have tried to say that the reason the soft tissues have been preserved is because "well..
-it's was found in Hard bone and protected there...
-it's was found in special sedimentary mud and protected there...
-it's was found marine sedimentary mud and protected there..."

but they keep finding the soft tissue OUTSIDE of those conditions as well,
there's a Triceratops horn that's been found with soft tissue (Osteo-tissue osteocytes) inside , unmistakable types of bone cells. It was found in Montana in the Bad lands and it was found broken up and run though with plant roots, fungus , microbes and earth. NOTHING to protect the bones inards from ALL of the various decompositional attacks that it could suffer.
yet there Triceratops soft tissue was.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
summery/abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23414624)
(peer reviewed paper in Acta Histochemica a euro pub , they also publish the Lancet and Cell)


the strata the Triceratops was found in is said to be 65 million years old... "impossible"
dinosaurs are all 65 million old or older... "impossible"
(by orders of magnitude)

If the facts don't fit the scientific dogma here, what do you change?

it's impossible for the tissue to survive 65 million years, so the bone CANNOT be that old.
that's the Only logical conclusion to come too.

it has to be LESS than even 1 million .
Based on the empirical science of known decomposition rates.
The dinosaurs have only been dead thousands of years, AT most.

Science always changes right away when it gets new facts that disproves the old scientific beliefs.... right?

[Missileman]

Thanks for the video. It presented a clear picture of what they found inside the bone. Just goes to show that scientists have more to learn about the processes of fossilization.
Biological material CANNOT survive more than 1million years, not EVEN 1 million years.
This assertion of yours is based on what exactly? Just because it hadn't been observed before doesn't mean it can't happen. And while you're looking for that info, take notice of this fact: neither the scientist who stumbled across these "tissues" nor any of her colleagues describe the bone she was working with as anything other than a 65-million-year-old fossil.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well taking your comment in the best light i'm guessing it was a joke. but it wasn't that funny IMO
so i posted :facepalm99: .

the comment that followed was a more serious take ,
it just seems that often when someone post some ideas or commentary that someone doesn't like, or haven't heard that POV or facts before that they put a negative label on the person and try to fit them into a box they've designed to fit those type of ideas. Then close the box. Sure, some people post first thing that comes to mind. Most often I'd be in big trouble if I did that. :laugh: I generally find your posts very interesting and almost always bountiful with information. Now you know which ever I do agree or not agree with your point of view I always at least read and consider it. We all should be a bit more considerate of the fact that gaining knowledge is beneficial and a good policy to pursue. My problem with some of the information you are citing is I simply do not believe the time frame put on many samples by science today. I think it was rigged long ago to fit the current theory of evolution. Even today we've found animals that were supposed to have gone extinct millions of years ago! And cave drawings that depicted cave man hunting/fighting dinosaurs etc. When such doesn't jive makes me suspicious of much of the current info given by science.--Tyr

[revelarts]

Sure, some people post first thing that comes to mind. Most often I'd be in big trouble if I did that. :laugh: I generally find your posts very interesting and almost always bountiful with information. Now you know which ever I do agree or not agree with your point of view I always at least read and consider it. We all should be a bit more considerate of the fact that gaining knowledge is beneficial and a good policy to pursue. My problem with some of the information you are citing is I simply do not believe the time frame put on many samples by science today. I think it was rigged long ago to fit the current theory of evolution. Even today we've found animals that were supposed to have gone extinct millions of years ago! And cave drawings that depicted cave man hunting/fighting dinosaurs etc. When such doesn't jive makes me suspicious of much of the current info given by science.--Tyr

i agree with you here TYR,
Over my lifetime iv'e accepted many of the different ages science has given.
But after the past 10 years or so of sorta giving the long ages the benny of the doubt, i'm done. There's just to much -evolution of the gaps- and some stuff like this dinosaur tissue thing just pushes the long earth ages out of the park seems to me. Long ages are NOT the Best explaintion of the facts. Certainly not the only legit explanation. Only science Dogma makes the long ages and evolution cold cases, tried and finished amen.

[revelarts]

Thanks for the video. It presented a clear picture of what they found inside the bone. Just goes to show that scientists have more to learn about the processes of fossilization.
:beer:



This assertion of yours is based on what exactly? Just because it hadn't been observed before doesn't mean it can't happen. And while you're looking for that info,
please reread the post, there's plenty there.


take notice of this fact: neither the scientist who stumbled across these "tissues" nor any of her colleagues describe the bone she was working with as anything other than a 65-million-year-old fossil.
yeess that's true, I HAS TO BE 65+million years old.
If not, then nearly all of dinosaur history and by extension evolutionary history and earths geologic history would have to be radically altered. 1000's of other scientist work would be trash.

Dr Switzer was attacked for her find already. She was rightly Afraid of that. What kind of scientific attack would she be under if she and others ALSO said that the tissue was recent.
that's outright heresy. not noble prize stuff.
thats a Lose your funding and job statement. if not deserving of---Ignatz Semmelweis (http://semmelweis.org/about/dr-semmelweis-biography/)--- level treatment.
At least one soft tissue researcher HAS lost his job over his follow up research into the question.
Another famous paleontologist has turned DOWN a $20,000+ grant to his work if he'd carbon date the soft tissue. -carbon dating is only good for 5000 yrs or so back.--
the grantor was going to pay for the test as well. But it was declined because of the controversy it might cause if the date comes back too YOUNG.

Is that good science?
if they are so sure why not date it?

[Missileman]

:beer:



please reread the post, there's plenty there.


yeess that's true, I HAS TO BE 65+million years old.
If not, then nearly all of dinosaur history and by extension evolutionary history and earths geologic history would have to be radically altered. 1000's of other scientist work would be trash.

Dr Switzer was attacked for her find already. She was rightly Afraid of that. What kind of scientific attack would she be under if she and others ALSO said that the tissue was recent.
that's outright heresy. not noble prize stuff.
thats a Lose your funding and job statement. if not deserving of---Ignatz Semmelweis (http://semmelweis.org/about/dr-semmelweis-biography/)--- level treatment.
At least one soft tissue researcher HAS lost his job over his follow up research into the question.
Another famous paleontologist has turned DOWN a $20,000+ grant to his work if he'd carbon date the soft tissue. -carbon dating is only good for 5000 yrs or so back.--
the grantor was going to pay for the test as well. But it was declined because of the controversy it might cause if the date comes back too YOUNG.

Is that good science?
if they are so sure why not date it?

It doesn't HAVE to be, IT IS. And you can tell that there's really nothing in this "tissue" that proves a young earth by listening to the blatant misrepresentation of what's in the bone by creationists. You don't have to misrepresent the truth.

[revelarts]

It doesn't HAVE to be, IT IS. And you can tell that there's really nothing in this "tissue" that proves a young earth by listening to the blatant misrepresentation of what's in the bone by creationists. You don't have to misrepresent the truth.

"blatant misrepresentations?" Like the peer reviews papers they've published on the subject?

"It doesn't HAVE to be, IT IS."
Let the science tell the story. assertions like your "just because we haven't seen it before doesn't mean it hasn't happened." are fine as long as you admit that it's scientifically "impossible" in this case. But we are going to BELIEVE it anyway because of scientific convention... or because we believe in miracles. Either statement is honest. But scientific facts, i'm told, are usually establish by observations. What we have seen.

We can't just ASSERT that "IT IS" ,scientifically speaking, in face of well established scientific facts without some countervailing scientific evidence.
"that's what we've always believed" is not science, that's dogma.

[Missileman]

"blatant misrepresentations?" Like the peer reviews papers they've published on the subject?

"It doesn't HAVE to be, IT IS."
Let the science tell the story. assertions like your "just because we haven't seen it before doesn't mean it hasn't happened." are fine as long as you admit that it's scientifically "impossible" in this case. But we are going to BELIEVE it anyway because of scientific convention... or because we believe in miracles. Either statement is honest. But scientific facts, i'm told, are usually establish by observations. What we have seen.

We can't just ASSERT that "IT IS" ,scientifically speaking, in face of well established scientific facts without some countervailing scientific evidence.
"that's what we've always believed" is not science, that's dogma.

You keep repeating that it's scientifically impossible based on nothing at all. Apparently IT IS POSSIBLE, they just can't explain how it happened yet. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. And when I say blatant misrepresentation, statements like "sections of the bone were like fresh bone" are pure lies.

[Missileman]

but they keep finding the soft tissue OUTSIDE of those conditions as well,
there's a Triceratops horn that's been found with soft tissue (Osteo-tissue osteocytes) inside , unmistakable types of bone cells. It was found in Montana in the Bad lands and it was found broken up and run though with plant roots, fungus , microbes and earth. NOTHING to protect the bones inards from ALL of the various decompositional attacks that it could suffer.
yet there Triceratops soft tissue was.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...65128113000020 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020)
summery/abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23414624)
(peer reviewed paper in Acta Histochemica a euro pub , they also publish the Lancet and Cell)

And speaking of misrepresentation...point to the part of the article that talks about broken up, roots, fungus, microbes, and earth.

[revelarts]

And speaking of misrepresentation...point to the part of the article that talks about broken up, roots, fungus, microbes, and earth.

your right it's not in that excerpt from the paper.
I got that information from an audio interview the papers writer where he says it.

here is the same writer responding to an intelligent design evolutionist and long age believer
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellectual-freedom/expelled-professor-mark-armitage-responds-to-his-critics/

If you knew anything Dr. Meyers, about the microscopy of osteocytes – living osteocytes – (and we are not talking about epithelial cells) you would know that delicate ultrastructure – and I am talking fine filipodia approaching 500nm in width, decay WITHIN DAYS of the death of an organism. We microscopists have to use quick acting preservatives and process bone tissues immediately ON ICE to preserve the kinds of structures you can see on the Triceratops osteocytes in my paper:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
The reason we creationists are very excited about this work – the reason you and Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer are backpedalling FAST on this issue now is because EVERYBODY knows this kind of ultrastructural preservation is MIRACULOUS. Osteocytes do not sit around with these kinds of structures for 10,000 years – let alone 68 million years.
Secondly – you should resist the temptation to comment about things you have not done your homework on. Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself because Mary Schweitzer showed in her 2013 paper that these osteocytes contain HISTONES inside their nucleoli. This is direct evidence that there is MIRACULOUS preservation of autogenous molecules inside these bones – and in my case, inside a highly vascular, mud embedded Triceratops horn (not a deeply buried heavily encased limb bone).

...

[Missileman]

your right it's not in that excerpt from the paper.
I got that information from an audio interview the papers writer where he says it.

here is the same writer responding to an intelligent design evolutionist and long age believer
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellectual-freedom/expelled-professor-mark-armitage-responds-to-his-critics/


decay WITHIN DAYS of the death of an organism So now the dinosaurs aren't thousands of years old, they're days old?

[Drummond]

I don't know the science to know how precisely it's been worked out. However .. the 'observable' Universe is reckoned to be 13.7 billion years old. That's to say, scientists are supposed to know that the oldest light ever seen from a cosmological object took 13.7 billion years to reach us.

For what it's worth to anybody, I'm posting 'parts' of a BBC Horizon programme first screened in 2006 (every now and again they're rebroadcast). Horizon programmes are typically an hour long - this one, on YouTube, comes in four parts, but I've only found the first three !!

I remember how it ends, though. The understanding is that Dark Matter really exists, it's 'observable' through indirect interactions with normal matter, and .. due to its nature, it's forcing galaxies to fly away from each other. Apparently .. no matter where in the Universe you were, EVERY galaxy would be moving further apart, meaning that space ITSELF is expanding.

They also conclude that if a Big Bang was responsible for the Universe, sooner or later the expansion would slow down, maybe stop entirely, and maybe an eventual contraction would occur. Instead, it's supposed to be proven, now, that the process is 'speeding up'. They conclude that continual production of Dark Matter, combined with 'Dark Energy' is driving the process (mentioned in Part 3).

Or to put it another way, maybe there was no first 'Big Bang' ... rather, the Bangs are still happening !

Videos as follows ... done in typically 'dumbed down' fashion, typical, that's to say, for the BBC ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1SdyW1jOcM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHJF5vM2Qq8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLuvrU7N2fc

[revelarts]

So now the dinosaurs aren't thousands of years old, they're days old?
Are you the one 'misrepresenting' at this point Missile?

[Missileman]

Are you the one 'misrepresenting' at this point Missile?

Nope...the "scientist" in your link said that structures found in the Triceratops fossil are of the type that decay within days. Either he's full of crap or the fossil is only a few days old. I'll bet you can guess which I know is true.

[revelarts]

Nope...the "scientist" in your link said that structures found in the Triceratops fossil are of the type that decay within days. Either he's full of crap or the fossil is only a few days old. I'll bet you can guess which I know is true.
riiiiight. :rolleyes:
have you ever heard of anyone, including the maligned young earth creationist, claiming dinosaurs bones are days old. that's a misrepresentation.

and BTW you should really apologize for claiming i misrepresented the facts earlier. I did not and have not.

Any way, you can't answer why the tissue is still here after supposed millions of years, so you trying to say that the published peer reviewed professor of micrology thinks the fossilized triceratops bone is only a few days old.

Richard Dawkins says life appears designed. So he must believe in God.

[Missileman]

riiiiight. :rolleyes:
have you ever heard of anyone, including the maligned young earth creationist, claiming dinosaurs bones are days old. that's a misrepresentation.

and BTW you should really apologize for claiming i misrepresented the facts earlier. I did not and have not.

Any way, you can't answer why the tissue is still here after supposed millions of years, so you trying to say that the published peer reviewed professor of micrology thinks the fossilized triceratops bone is only a few days old.

Richard Dawkins says life appears designed. So he must believe in God.


If you knew anything Dr. Meyers, about the microscopy of osteocytes – living osteocytes – (and we are not talking about epithelial cells) you would know that delicate ultrastructure – and I am talking fine filipodia approaching 500nm in width, decay WITHIN DAYS of the death of an organism. We microscopists have to use quick acting preservatives and process bone tissues immediately ON ICE to preserve the kinds of structures you can see on the Triceratops osteocytes in my paper: He said exactly what I wrote.

[revelarts]

Science fraud, $ influence,
the peer review process and grants.


<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VVE9NnucQKM?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[revelarts]

More on Dinosaur Soft tissue , dino Skin, Dino Eggs with proteins, Soft tissue "over 130 million years Old" .

from Uncommon decent website


This is another example of the power of the evolutionary paradigm. It can make evolutionists believe in miracles.
What would have been laughed at as preposterous just 10 years ago is now being roundly accepted. The paradigm must never be questioned. If there is evidence that throws it into question, always question the evidence OR just accept that evolution can do more than you realized.
Similar examples abound:

Scientists from 10 universities and institutions have verified that the collagen protein in dinosaur bone is primordial – i.e., from the dinosaur, not from later contamination. By first studying the molecular packing of collagen in living animals, and using X-ray diffraction modeling, they matched the surviving collagen molecules to those that would most likely survive degradation. They feel this establishes the authenticity of the protein fragments against claims of contamination and simultaneously offers a mechanism for its resistance to degradation.
The claim of original dinosaur protein was met with skepticism, an article on PhysOrg began: “Although the team had previously presented multiple lines of evidence supporting the veracity of the find, the fact that the age of the peptides far exceeds any previous predictions of how long a protein could resist degradation has generated controversy.”
….
The researchers in this article only offered the meagerest suggestions that “might” explain the survivability of the protein. Worse, they only looked at the collagen, ignoring the blood vessels, blood cells, tendons and medullary bone reported by Schweitzer and others.
http://tinyurl.com/ljk53gk (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellectual-freedom/expelled-professor-mark-armitage-responds-to-his-critics/)
Also this: “Intact Protein Remnants Found in Dinosaur Eggs”

A new record for soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil was reported in Nature: collagen in dinosaur eggs from the early Jurassic.
The Nature paper is all over the news, but not all the science reporters are mentioning the most damaging admission to long ages: the preservation of organic material in fossil sauropod eggs from China, said to be 190–197 million years old from the early Jurassic – 100 million years older than the previous record.
http://crev.info/2013/04/prote.....saur-eggs/ (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellectual-freedom/expelled-professor-mark-armitage-responds-to-his-critics/)
And … “Dinosaur Bones Crack Open Surprises: Original Tissue”

Nature is kind. That’s nice to know; but what was the context of the statement in New Scientist? “Occasionally, though, nature is kind and fossilisation preserves details of an animal’s soft tissue.” But has nature been kind for tens of millions of years? In an article called “Soft-centred fossils reveal dinosaurs’ true colours,” Jeff Hecht spilled the beans that more researchers are finding soft tissue and original material in dinosaur bones said to be over 65 million years old and older – even more than twice as old.
And how about this? “Intact Dinosaur Skin Found”

Some material that flaked off a fossil in Alberta was not stone; it was dinosaur skin. Discoverers were excited and puzzled: how could it last so long?
Here’s how Mauricio Barbi of the University of Regina described their discovery, according to PhysOrg:

“As we excavated the fossil, I thought that we were looking at a skin impression. Then I noticed a piece came off and I realized this is not ordinary – this is real skin. Everyone involved with the excavation was incredibly excited and we started discussing research projects right away.”
http://crev.info/2013/05/intac.....kin-found/ (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellectual-freedom/expelled-professor-mark-armitage-responds-to-his-critics/)

[revelarts]

So now the dinosaurs aren't thousands of years old, they're days old?

All they have to do is carbon date the finds , but it seems like they won't.

[Missileman]

All they have to do is carbon date the finds , but it seems like they won't.
Is this the same dating method you claim can't possibly date the earth as billions of years old?

[cadet]

All they have to do is carbon date the finds , but it seems like they won't.

Carbon dating is dumb. Rule of thumb for if you do it, you'll be off by half.
Which means if you carbon date to 200 million, you're regularly off by 100 million. Either way.
Or 1000, you'll probably be off by 500.
I don't trust carbon dating. Esspecially since it depends upon the carbon content of the area.
Heck, you can't carbon date most items. They get carborized, which if you took something fresh off the assembly line, you'd say it was millions of years old.

[Missileman]

Carbon dating is dumb. Rule of thumb for if you do it, you'll be off by half.
Which means if you carbon date to 200 million, you're regularly off by 100 million. Either way.
Or 1000, you'll probably be off by 500.
I don't trust carbon dating. Esspecially since it depends upon the carbon content of the area.
Heck, you can't carbon date most items. They get carborized, which if you took something fresh off the assembly line, you'd say it was millions of years old.

You're a veritable font of misinformation.

[aboutime]

You're a veritable font of misinformation.

I do wish cadet would spend more time providing PROOF to backup his posts.

Just this afternoon. I was really concerned about How accurate CARBON DATING is.

Then I remembered. In all my years on Earth. I have NEVER Dated anyone called CARBON.:laugh:

[revelarts]

Is this the same dating method you claim can't possibly date the earth as billions of years old?

You're a veritable font of misinformation.

"Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past .... "

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm

Above is decent article on carbon 14 dating.
I'm not claiming that even it is right all of the time, it's been proven to be wrong when dating some artifacts of a known age. However it should, not only by default, but by it's measurement give an age far younger than 65-130 million years.
As if anynone really needed more proof than we already have since science has established decay rates for biological proteins and molecules for some time now. well known from Egpytian Mummies and frozen mammoths and men and from experimentation in forensic science. where they often ask the question "how long have they been dead." the amount of decomposition and the environment tells the story.

the ONLY reason it's questioned here is because everyone has believed that dinosaurs were 65 million + years old. so now established observable scinece is called into question against scineticfic DOGMA.

why are the dinosaurs considered 65+ million years old. because of the rock layers they are found in. why are the layers considered 65 + million years old.. well because of the Dinosaurs in them often.
OH and radiometic dating of the rocks right?.. well no not really because many of the rocks layers are sedimentary, mixed stones, so they can't be dated that way accurately.
so there's really no way to know how old many of the rocks are then.. and if they can find carbon 14 in diamond. which are supposed to be millions billions of years old that means THEY can not be are not that old, if carbon dating is accurate.

SO why MUST the Dinos be millions of years old again Missile? What's the hard evidence? not the beliefs or assertions?

[Missileman]

"Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past .... "

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm

Above is decent article on carbon 14 dating.
I'm not claiming that even it is right all of the time, it's been proven to be wrong when dating some artifacts of a known age. However it should, not only by default, but by it's measurement give an age far younger than 65-130 million years.
As if anynone really needed more proof than we already have since science has established decay rates for biological proteins and molecules for some time now. well known from Egpytian Mummies and frozen mammoths and men and from experimentation in forensic science. where they often ask the question "how long have they been dead." the amount of decomposition and the environment tells the story.

the ONLY reason it's questioned here is because everyone has believed that dinosaurs were 65 million + years old. so now established observable scinece is called into question against scineticfic DOGMA.

why are the dinosaurs considered 65+ million years old. because of the rock layers they are found in. why are the layers considered 65 + million years old.. well because of the Dinosaurs in them often.
OH and radiometic dating of the rocks right?.. well no not really because many of the rocks layers are sedimentary, mixed stones, so they can't be dated that way accurately.
so there's really no way to know how old many of the rocks are then.. and if they can find carbon 14 in diamond. which are supposed to be millions billions of years old that means THEY can not be are not that old, if carbon dating is accurate.

SO why MUST the Dinos be millions of years old again Missile? What's the hard evidence? not the beliefs or assertions?

Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating BTW, if the earth is only 6,000 years old, how are they dating to 50,000? And as I've said before, the fossils of dinosaurs are millions of years old because that's when they existed. You can't provide a single shred of evidence to the contrary.

[revelarts]

I already have missle
........
moving on
http://mynetbox.info/images/notmine/CARBON-14-cartoon.jpg

[Missileman]

I already have missle
........
moving on
http://mynetbox.info/images/notmine/CARBON-14-cartoon.jpg

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html Tearing down strawman arguments is so easy!

[revelarts]

Only easy if you think "probably" and "research is on going" to find an explanation that fit the 100s of millions of years. Are real answers Missile.



The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

the silly creationist have looked at the above possibility and the PROBLEM with that answer is that to get the amount of Carbon 14 found in the coal (diamond, gas, dino bones etc etc ) you'd have to have 1000's of times more neutrons available than is in the areas where coal is found.
And EVEN in URANIUM RICH areas you generally don't see the amounts radioactivity needed to produce the results found.
There just not enough radioactivity in crust of the earth to create the Carbon14 found in coal.
"the people who make this proposal haven't done the math." Dr. Paul Giem,

If this is the answer, then they need to prove it with experimentation. And based on the facts on the table to date it is NOT a likely solution at all. One scientist that works with radioactive material transfers (called neutron capture) estimates that for radioactive decay to create carbon 14 in diamonds, the diamonds would have to be be found in a uranium mine surrounded by it.



(The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. (? underground for 100 million years? so hows that?) There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C. (C13? that's not even in question))

this is PURE SPECULATION. not evidence.

When there's some real hard evidence that can account for the data, you can declare an easy "strawman(?)" torn down, until then the problem for the millions of years age assertions remains.
the carbon 14 dating say NO.
But if you want to BELIEVE that the answers are ON the way soon ..."after more research"... that's fine. But don't assume that this particular fact is backing you up today. it's not.

[revelarts]

http://kgov.s3.amazonaws.com/bel/2013/20130719-BEL144.mp3
reference for above...

[Missileman]

Only easy if you think "probably" and "research is on going" to find an explanation that fit the 100s of millions of years. Are real answers Missile.



the silly creationist have looked at the above possibility and the PROBLEM with that answer is that to get the amount of Carbon 14 found in the coal (diamond, gas, dino bones etc etc ) you'd have to have 1000's of times more neutrons available than is in the areas where coal is found.
And EVEN in URANIUM RICH areas you generally don't see the amounts radioactivity needed to produce the results found.
There just not enough radioactivity in crust of the earth to create the Carbon14 found in coal.
"the people who make this proposal haven't done the math." Dr. Paul Giem,

If this is the answer, then they need to prove it with experimentation. And based on the facts on the table to date it is NOT a likely solution at all. One scientist that works with radioactive material transfers (called neutron capture) estimates that for radioactive decay to create carbon 14 in diamonds, the diamonds would have to be be found in a uranium mine surrounded by it.


this is PURE SPECULATION. not evidence.

When there's some real hard evidence that can account for the data, you can declare an easy "strawman(?)" torn down, until then the problem for the millions of years age assertions remains.
the carbon 14 dating say NO.
But if you want to BELIEVE that the answers are ON the way soon ..."after more research"... that's fine. But don't assume that this particular fact is backing you up today. it's not. Funny that you choose to discount coal that has no carbon 14 detected in it at all. Once again, coal with no carbon 14 at all would be, according to you, at least 70,000 years old. Reconcile 70,000 years with your 6,000 year-old-earth.

[revelarts]

Funny that you choose to discount coal that has no carbon 14 detected in it at all. Once again, coal with no carbon 14 at all would be, according to you, at least 70,000 years old. Reconcile 70,000 years with your 6,000 year-old-earth.

So we're agreed that the evidence does show that coal and other substances now indicate that they are thousands of years old rather than millions.
great.

[Missileman]

So we're agreed that the evidence does show that coal and other substances now indicate that they are thousands of years old rather than millions.
great.

No, evidence shows that some coal has been depleted of all its C14 as expected and some coal has generated new C14 through other radioactive processes. Either way, the coal is tens of millions of years old. Again, explain coal that is AT LEAST 10 times as old as your theoretical 6,000 year-old-earth.

[logroller]

Carbon dating is dumb. Rule of thumb for if you do it, you'll be off by half.
Which means if you carbon date to 200 million, you're regularly off by 100 million. Either way.
Or 1000, you'll probably be off by 500.
I don't trust carbon dating. Esspecially since it depends upon the carbon content of the area.
Heck, you can't carbon date most items. They get carborized, which if you took something fresh off the assembly line, you'd say it was millions of years old.


the rule of thumb for half-lives is the time it takes for any given radioactive isotope to decay into another isotope-- not that its margin of error is half. In fact the margin of error for carbon 14 half- life is +/-40 years on 5730 years-- that's less than 1%, not 50%.
I think you're either uninformed or intentionally obfuscating to make a point. Carbon-14 has a half-life on the order of 10^3 (1,000) years, so using it estimate 10^8 (100 million) would be frustrated by margins of error-- that's why it's only used to date items to ~50,000 years. To do otherwise would be like measuring the diameter of a human hair with a meter stick.


As for something coming off the factory floor, Unless by "factory" you mean a living organism like plants that uptakes and "fixes" atmospheric carbon-14 then I don't think you understand how carbon-14 is formed let alone how its used to date items containing it.

[logroller]

No, evidence shows that some coal has been depleted of all its C14 as expected and some coal has generated new C14 through other radioactive processes. Either way, the coal is tens of millions of years old. Again, explain coal that is AT LEAST 10 times as old as your theoretical 6,000 year-old-earth.
That's not their mo-- the young earth folks point out some error, say the estimates on the 7918 mile diameter of earth being off by 100 miles as testament to the possibility that earth's diameter is 50 feet. It's absurdity.

[revelarts]

That's not their mo-- the young earth folks point out some error, say the estimates on the 7918 mile diameter of earth being off by 100 miles as testament to the possibility that earth's diameter is 50 feet. It's absurdity.

It's off by 100. miles Log?


65million years dates and 130 million year dates for dinos, compared to the carbon dates of dino tissue is less than 500,000,
so that's off by what? just 129,500,000 years
OK so that's not much off right?

But 6000 years compared to 500,000, is a difference of 494,000 years

so who really farther off here?
who position is more absurd by 100's of millions?

[Missileman]

It's off by 100. miles Log?


65million years dates and 130 million year dates for dinos, compared to the carbon dates of dino tissue is less than 500,000, ok that off by what just 129,500,000 years
OK so that's not much off right?

6000 years compared to 500,000, is a difference of 494,000 years

so who really farther off here?
who position is more absurd by 100's of millions?

Here's your problem. 100 million or 100 thousand, the difference is irrelevant as it pertains to YOUR theory because EITHER disproves it, PERIOD!

[revelarts]

Here's your problem. 100 million or 100 thousand, the difference is irrelevant as it pertains to YOUR theory because EITHER disproves it, PERIOD!

Your problem is the carbon dating of 500,000 ...or less... disprove millions.
and you won't accept it. Your the one that claims science has the final word not me.
YOU'VE got a bigger problem than i do.
Because you won't even Accept facts from the sources you say have the final word.
You'll stick with OLD scientific theories and not change until the majority of the science cult tells you to,
not when the scientific facts clearly show different.

Most people who say they follow the science where it leads are not really like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis,
most are like his colleges. Ready to ridicule and oppress anyone who challenges the established ideas and ready to ignore any evidence that show the flaws of pet dogmas.

[Missileman]

Your problem is the 500,000 disprove millions.
and you won't accept it. Your the one that claims science has the final word not me.
YOU'VE got a bigger problem than i do.
Because you won't even Accept facts from the sources you say have the final word.
You'll stick with OLD scientific theories and not change until the majority of the science cult tells you to,
not when the scientific facts clearly show different.

Most people who say they follow the science where it leads are not really like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis,
most are like his colleges. Ready to ridicule and oppress anyone who challenges the established ideas and ready to ignore any evidence that show the flaws of pet dogmas.

You pull 500,000 out of your ass and pretend it's fact. No one has disproven 65 million year old dinosaur fossils, DEAL WITH IT! You try to tell me I have a problem when you cling to a theory that YOUR OWN EVIDENCE says can't be true.

[revelarts]

You pull 500,000 out of your ass and pretend it's fact. No one has disproven 65 million year old dinosaur fossils, DEAL WITH IT! You try to tell me I have a problem when you cling to a theory that YOUR OWN EVIDENCE says can't be true.

well I'll admit I was wrong . it wasn't dated 500,000 yrs it was dated at LESS THAN 40,000 yrs. maybe even 22,000
I'll have to deal with it i guess,
so that make 6000 year only 34,000 to 16,000 years off. well , I'll wait for science to catch up to the Bible but they are getting closer seems to me.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37627-Dino-tissue-Carbon-14-dated-to-less-than-40-000-years-Censored-conference-report&highlight=singapore

Dinosaur bones Carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years - Censored international conference report
Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones – the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old. Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning. And more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. It won't be restored.

The researchers presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

Carbon-14 is considered to be unassailable in its reliability among dating methods. It’s accuracy as a technique has been verified by using C-14 to date artifacts whose age is known historically. The possibility that the amount of C-14 in the air has fluctuated adds a small uncertainty. But the greater possibility for error is that the amount of C-14 in bone samples has been altered by contaminants such as decayed organic matter from soils.

Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He says that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. "Comparing such entirely different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 signals which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable signal concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 signals unlikely", he notes. "If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them."......


DEAL WITH IT!!!!

[Missileman]

well I'll admit I was wrong . it wasn't dated 500,000 yrs it was dated at LESS THAN 40,000 yrs. maybe even 22,000
I'll have to deal with it i guess,
so that make 6000 year only 34,000 to 16,000 years off. well , I'll wait for science to catch up to the Bible but they are getting closer seems to me.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37627-Dino-tissue-Carbon-14-dated-to-less-than-40-000-years-Censored-conference-report&highlight=singapore



DEAL WITH IT!!!!

None of which refutes the thousands (millions?) of fossils that have been dated to 65 million years old or older. And you still haven't explained coal and fossils that contain NO C14 at all. Those would be even further out of your theory's date range.

[Gaffer]

Here you go rev. Let's look at a mere 39,000 years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2358695/Woolly-mammoth-frozen-Siberia-39-000-YEARS-goes-display-Tokyo-woolly.html

The young earth theories have been proven repeatedly to be total bullshit.

[revelarts]

Here you go rev. Let's look at a mere 39,000 years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2358695/Woolly-mammoth-frozen-Siberia-39-000-YEARS-goes-display-Tokyo-woolly.html

The young earth theories have been proven repeatedly to be total bullshit.

Gaffer I admit that getting to 6,000 -10000 year time frame is not there by a few thousand years ....so far.
What I've been pointing out is that the Millions of years for Dino's is TOTAL BS!

instead of really defendng your points Missle and others have only attacked mine.
ALL THE WHILE NEVER acknokledgeing the SCEINCE they say is THE foundation for there beliefs in those millions of Year.

Missle earlier said i pulled numbers out of.. the air... but when i showed him, AGAIN, the scientific test results, he didn't say 'OH, I'm sorry, I guess your right on that point, THERE IS EVIDENCE that would allow someone to conclude that dinosaurs are not millions of years old but....'
No he attacked it and denied it had any bearing and only wants to look at other items that supposedly fit his position.
science looks at all of the evidence not just what fit's your view.


Concerning your mammoth

"Dr Grigoriev initially put the age of the animal at around 10,000 years but more recent dating tests suggest the creature is much older, dating back around 39,000 years."

I'm curious what test they did to determine the older age. You or I could assume that date is FINAL. but new test could blow that number out of the water as well and send them back to the original.

How about an open mind when looking into thing rather than just assuming

[cadet]

You pull 500,000 out of your ass and pretend it's fact. No one has disproven 65 million year old dinosaur fossils, DEAL WITH IT! You try to tell me I have a problem when you cling to a theory that YOUR OWN EVIDENCE says can't be true.

http://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/#.UnPaHvlQGnY

If you hadn't noticed, nobody is really stuck on the earth being 6000 years old.
Rev is just trying to tell you to look at things with a different perspective. And that science disproves itself ALL the time. To really know what's going on, we have to broaden our perspective. So many things are theoretical, and you get spoon fed "facts" all the time. There's the things that scientists have been finding, and the things the average joe knows.
Look at what they're REALLY finding. It's a LOT of weird stuff, and a LOT of it contradicts itself. Makes you wonder what's going on. Many people are stuck in a rut, and think they know what's going on. Even scientists aren't sure what's going on. There have been cooking pots, nuts and bolts, etc. found in coal. IN coal. Not surrounded in it like it was thrown in the pile. But coal had GROWN around it. And the age of the coal was too old to have that kind of technology and human advancement in it.
How do you explain that? Is time more wishy-washy then we thought? Does life keep repeating in a continuous cycle? Perhaps there's such things as holes in reality where you can fall in and out.
Look at the world, and all the things that don't add up. And then add them up. Our universe is far more complex then what you know. There is no simple "Big bang billions of years ago and then it lead here step by step." It's far more likely to be much more interesting.

[logroller]

It's off by 100. miles Log?


65million years dates and 130 million year dates for dinos, compared to the carbon dates of dino tissue is less than 500,000,
so that's off by what? just 129,500,000 years
OK so that's not much off right?

But 6000 years compared to 500,000, is a difference of 494,000 years

so who really farther off here?
who position is more absurd by 100's of millions?
I've already addressed the accuracy of carbon dating; its only accurate to, at most 50,000-60,000 years-- so any attempt to date something using carbon- 14 beyond that would be junk. To do otherwise would be like measuring the diameter of a human hair with a meterstick. No scientists did that rev; that wasn't even the thrust of the findings-- what was found were traces of organic material believed to be millions ofyears old (based on dating techniques other than the organic materials' carbon content), not that the carbon material was the basis of the age.

[revelarts]

I've already addressed the accuracy of carbon dating; its only accurate to, at most 50,000-60,000 years-- so any attempt to date something using carbon- 14 beyond that would be junk. To do otherwise would be like measuring the diameter of a human hair with a meterstick. No scientists did that rev; that wasn't even the thrust of the findings-- what was found were traces of organic material believed to be millions ofyears old (based on dating techniques other than the organic materials' carbon content), not that the carbon material was the basis of the age.

log sorry that's not the way the use it.



Many thanks to Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks (http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869Z/CHEM869ZLinks/www.gi.alaska.edu) for permission to use the following extract
All carbon is not created equal. The same element can have different isotopes or atomic numbers---in effect, the weights of their nuclei differ. Carbon has three isotopes, known as carbon 12, carbon 13, and carbon 14, often called simply C-12, C-13, and C-14.
The carbon in the carbon dioxide we breathe, for example, is about 99 percent C-12. The remaining one percent is virtually all C-13. That's fine, because the two isotopes are the same element. The very rare carbon 14 is another matter, though, because it is radioactive. By losing an electron, every atom of C-14 eventually will decay into an atom of N-14; that is, it will turn into ordinary nitrogen.
As radioactive substances go, C-14 doesn't last long. Half of any number of atoms of carbon 14 will have become nitrogen 14 after 5730 years have passed. That's simply another way of saying that C-14 has a half-life of 5730 years.
Since the earth is more than four billion years old, all C-14 would have decayed into nitrogen long ago if new C-14 atoms weren't being produced. Cosmic radiation zaps enough atoms of ordinary carbon into the radioactive form to keep the planetary supply of carbon 14 at near 60 metric tons. That sounds enormous, but it's puny next to the worldwide total of all forms of carbon in the atmosphere, biosphere, and fresh and salt waters, which stands at about 40 trillion metric tons (that's 40 followed by twelve more zeros).
Growing plants make withdrawals from that limited supply of radioactive carbon. They must assimilate carbon from the atmosphere's carbon dioxide, and they take in atoms of C-14 right along with atoms of stable carbon isotopes. The carbon gets built into the plants, and then into any animal that eats the plants.
Right---that means every living thing is slightly, but measurably, radioactive. However, the radioactive material is being built into the organism only while it lives. Dead plants and animals don't breathe or build up their mass. From the moment of death on, all their C-14 is on a one-way trip toward becoming nitrogen.

Knowing how much radioactive carbon a mammoth tooth would have contained when its owner lived, a researcher with the right equipment can measure how much it now has and then calculate how long ago the mammoth died. Charcoal from a hunter's campfire offers a similar kind of radiocarbon clock. Thus, carbon dating---more precisely, radiocarbon dating---lets us measure temporal distances into the past.
From an article by Carla Helfferich .. Alaska Science Forum (http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869Z/CHEM869ZLinks/www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF11/1130.html)


http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869Z/CHEM869ZLinks/www.all.mq.edu.au/online/edu/egypt/carbdate.htm

So in these cases, working with formally living tissue they are working within ranges and processes that they understand and that make sense.

I am not going to argue that the methods are 100% accurate. obviously there are assumptions built into all these radiometric "clocks".
(one nuclear scientist says that watching folks do the work for radiometric dating is like watching sausage being made..)

But if you want to throw out all radiometric dating methods as inaccurate that's fine by me i guess. It's 1 of the the only feeble legs the millions of years has to stand on.

[Missileman]

log sorry that's not the way the use it.



http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869Z/CHEM869ZLinks/www.all.mq.edu.au/online/edu/egypt/carbdate.htm

So in these cases, working with formally living tissue they are working within ranges and processes that they understand and that make sense.

I am not going to argue that the methods are 100% accurate. obviously there are assumptions built into all these radiometric "clocks".
(one nuclear scientist says that watching folks do the work for radiometric dating is like watching sausage being made..)

But if you want to throw out all radiometric dating methods as inaccurate that's fine by me i guess. It's 1 of the the only feeble legs the millions of years has to stand on.

Not so fast...pre-death consumption of plant material is not the only way C14 can wind up inside a fossil. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
Other carbon-14 sources[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon-14&action=edit&section=5)]Carbon-14 can also be produced by other neutron reactions, including in particular 13C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-13)(n,gamma)14C and 17O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-17)(n,alpha)14C with thermal neutrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_neutron), and 15N (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen-15)(n,d)14C and 16O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-16)(n,3He)14C with fast neutrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_neutron).[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#cite_note-14)
Coincidently, it's how C14 winds up in coal that's millions of years old.

[logroller]

log sorry that's not the way the use it.



http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869Z/CHEM869ZLinks/www.all.mq.edu.au/online/edu/egypt/carbdate.htm

So in these cases, working with formally living tissue they are working within ranges and processes that they understand and that make sense.

I am not going to argue that the methods are 100% accurate. obviously there are assumptions built into all these radiometric "clocks".
(one nuclear scientist says that watching folks do the work for radiometric dating is like watching sausage being made..)

But if you want to throw out all radiometric dating methods as inaccurate that's fine by me i guess. It's 1 of the the only feeble legs the millions of years has to stand on.
Where in there did it say they use radiocarbon to accurately date objects millions of years old?

[revelarts]

Where in there did it say they use radiocarbon to accurately date objects millions of years old?

It says that if there's ANY carbon-14 it's NOT millions of years old.
Because the carbon 14 would have all decayed into nitrogen.
The half life is less than a million years old.
The very presents of carbon 14 in the dinosaurs tissues means that it's cannot be millions of years old.

the question becomes how young is it.

[Missileman]

It says that if there's ANY carbon-14 it's NOT millions of years old.

The very presents of carbon 14 in the dinosaurs tissues means that it's cannot be millions of years old.



Both of those statements are false.

[Gaffer]

One thing I didn't quite understand was how these scientist got hold of a dino bone, and actual bone. I didn't read where they got it from, might have just missed it. The dino's lived hundreds of millions of years ago and the fossils of them are stone, not bone. It's a long slow process where the bone is replaced by bits of the surrounding dirt and sand. Ever heard of the stone forest? Oil is called a fossil fuel because it comes from the remains of plant life that lived millions of years ago. Same goes for coal.

There may have been dinosaurs living somewhere as late as 10,000 years ago. There weren't many men around to report it at that time. It's unlikely any of them would have survived the ice age. Unless you want to discount all the geological evidence concerning the earth. Geology, entomology, paleontology and a whole bunch more all over lap in constructing the past and history of the planet. They are scientists, not religious zealots. They report the facts.

[logroller]

It says that if there's ANY carbon-14 it's NOT millions of years old.

Where did it say that?

[revelarts]

Both of those statements are false.

Where did it say that?

"However, the radioactive material is being built into the organism only while it lives. Dead plants and animals don't breathe or build up their mass. From the moment of death on, all their C-14 is on a one-way trip toward becoming nitrogen."

the half life is apx 5000 years
cut 1 apple in half every 5000 years and you'll be down to 1/200th of an apple atoms in a million years. if the pieces are FAR bigger say 1/16th you know the apple hasn't been around that long. eventually they'll be no "apple".

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/udkQwW6aLik?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

1:33
"...out of every trillion carbon atoms in your body only one dozen of them are carbon 14.
As long as an organism is alive and eating it maintains a constant ratio of carbon fourteen to regular carbon but once the organism dies the amount of carbon fourteen in the body begins to decrease. After five thousand years about half of the original number of carbon 14 atoms will have decayed. Using this fact scientist can tell how long ago an organism died."


again Here's the thing. the dead tissue is losing carbon 14 constantly, so at some point the formerly living tissue has next to Zero carbon14 compared to regular carbon.

again if you've got a special dollar that you have to spend 1/2 of per day, then it's have life is one day.
the next day you'll have 50cents
the next day you'll have 25 cents
the next day you'll only have 12.5 cents
the next day you'll only have 6.25 cents.
etc..
If i meet you and you tell me you have 50 cents and can figure you had a dollar yesterday.
if you say you've got around say .00000000582 of a penny left we can know that you haven't had a dollar in over a month. after a while the amount gets so small you know it's past a year and it not even worth counting any more but in the abstract it's infinite

But with physical Atoms it will eventually get to zero. and the machines they use can literally count individual atoms so it's not a guessing game as to whether or not there are any carbon 14 atoms left.

So as i mention there should be zero because they decay back into nitrogen.

You guys mentioned a few options for problems with this, other scientist have brought each up in an attempt to explain it away but they have been unable to.
Contamination: nope , test redone at various labs (and other scientist asked to redo them) no contamination.
Neutron capture from other radioactivity: Nope, not enough surrounding samples to account for the amount of carbon14. not enough anywhere near any samples.
It's really bio film not Dnio tissues: Nope, the its not bio film, it's cell structure show it to be collagen or veins or blood or other animal soft tissue, and again no contamination.

They do still assume that SOMEHOW the carbon14 atoms MUST HAVE gotten be there for some yet unknown reason other than the NORMAL WAY. But they have no PROOF or hard research that can explain it at this point.

If you want to ASSUME that there's another yet unknown explanation you are free to of course,
but don't call that SCIENCE, that is in fact a form of faith.

[Missileman]

"However, the radioactive material is being built into the organism only while it lives. Dead plants and animals don't breathe or build up their mass. From the moment of death on, all their C-14 is on a one-way trip toward becoming nitrogen."

the half life is apx 5000 years
cut 1 apple in half every 5000 years and you'll be down to 1/200th of an apple atoms in a million years. if the pieces are FAR bigger say 1/16th you know the apple hasn't been around that long. eventually they'll be no "apple".

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/udkQwW6aLik?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

1:33
"...out of every trillion carbon atoms in your body only one dozen of them are carbon 14.
As long as an organism is alive and eating it maintains a constant ratio of carbon fourteen to regular carbon but once the organism dies the amount of carbon fourteen in the body begins to decrease. After five thousand years about half of the original number of carbon 14 atoms will have decayed. Using this fact scientist can tell how long ago an organism died."


again Here's the thing. the dead tissue is losing carbon 14 constantly, so at some point the formerly living tissue has next to Zero carbon14 compared to regular carbon.

again if you've got a special dollar that you have to spend 1/2 of per day, then it's have life is one day.
the next day you'll have 50cents
the next day you'll have 25 cents
the next day you'll only have 12.5 cents
the next day you'll only have 6.25 cents.
etc..
If i meet you and you tell me you have 50 cents and can figure you had a dollar yesterday.
if you say you've got around say .00000000582 of a penny left we can know that you haven't had a dollar in over a month. after a while the amount gets so small you know it's past a year and it not even worth counting any more but in the abstract it's infinite

But with physical Atoms it will eventually get to zero. and the machines they use can literally count individual atoms so it's not a guessing game as to whether or not there are any carbon 14 atoms left.

So as i mention there should be zero because they decay back into nitrogen.

You guys mentioned a few options for problems with this, other scientist have brought each up in an attempt to explain it away but they have been unable to.
Contamination: nope , test redone at various labs (and other scientist asked to redo them) no contamination.
Neutron capture from other radioactivity: Nope, not enough surrounding samples to account for the amount of carbon14. not enough anywhere near any samples.
It's really bio film not Dnio tissues: Nope, the its not bio film, it's cell structure show it to be collagen or veins or blood or other animal soft tissue, and again no contamination.

They do still assume that SOMEHOW the carbon14 atoms MUST HAVE gotten be there for some yet unknown reason other than the NORMAL WAY. But they have no PROOF or hard research that can explain it at this point.

If you want to ASSUME that there's another yet unknown explanation you are free to of course,
but don't call that SCIENCE, that is in fact a form of faith.

Take the blinders off and check out post 105. And then, I suggest you actually watch the entire video you linked here. It totally explains all of the "concerns" you've put forth. :laugh2:

[revelarts]

One thing I didn't quite understand was how these scientist got hold of a dino bone, an actual bone. I didn't read where they got it from, might have just missed it.
The dino's lived hundreds of millions of years ago and the fossils of them are stone, not bone. It's a long slow process where the bone is replaced by bits of the surrounding dirt and sand....


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
Dinosaur Shocker Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the beasts that once ruled the earth

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
Dinosaur Shocker Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the beasts that once ruled the earth
...It was big news indeed ... when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens...

most science mag cling to old dates but not because of the science of the new discovery see carbon 14 in previous

But there are actual finds of UN-fossilized dinosaurs bones. Supposedly "70 million" years old in Alaska. they were not found underground but on near the suface many thought they were the bones of bison they look so fresh and mainly ignored them for over a decade it wasn't iuntil the 80's when they finally took a closer look to find they were indeed dinosaur bones.
Is there any way for bones to remain intact for 70 million years? it wasn't the cold. the climate was far warmer during the dinosaurs lifetime and after in that area.

Accounts of this appeared in the popular press, such as in the Edmonton Journal, October 26, 1987, a few months after the event, and in Saturday Night (a monthly magazine of analysis of current events) in August 1989, Vol.104 No.8, pp.16-19.
An initial announcement was printed in l985 in Geological Society of America abstract programs Vol.17, p.548. Already in press at that time was an article describing the site and the condition of the bones (Kyle L. Davies, ‘Duck-bill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) from the North Slope of Alaska’, Journal of Paleontology, Vol.61 No.1, pp.198-200.
Time, September 22, 1986, p.64; J.F. Bazinger, ‘Our “tropical” Arctic’, Canadian Geographic, Vol.106, No.6, pp.2837 (1986/7)






Ever heard of the stone forest? Oil is called a fossil fuel because it comes from the remains of plant life that lived millions of years ago. Same goes for coal.
Rates of fossilaztion are questionable, Biogenesis and Abiogeneses of oil and other origins of oils are in dispute (of course some people are SURE it's one of the other but there are problems either way) lots of Coal has carbon 14 and Is often NOT near any uranium to create the amounts of carbon 14 found. the old earth believers just toss that answer out as with a wave of the hand not real research.




There may have been dinosaurs living somewhere as late as 10,000 years ago. There weren't many men around to report it at that time. It's unlikely any of them would have survived the ice age. Unless you want to discount all the geological evidence concerning the earth. such as?
Geology, such as?
entomology, such as?
paleontology such as?
and a whole bunch more such as?
all over lap in constructing the past and history of the planet. They are scientists, not religious zealots. They report the facts.

Unless the facts cause problems then they report facts and try to explain it away or suspress facts that don't align with the current scientific dogmas. it's human nature. look at the istory of science. old ideas do not fall over night
there is differential rigor applied to research facts that go against the accepted paradigms.
Often applied with fervor of religious zealots. Or political partisans.

[revelarts]

Take the blinders off and check out post 105. And then, I suggest you actually watch the entire video you linked here. It totally explains all of the "concerns" you've put forth. :laugh2:

O jezz I put the half-baked skeptics added commentary version of the radio carbon basics video up.
that's more than i wanted to re-address here.

but Missile i'm sure that was comforting for you. however you didn't really listen to what the guy said. it does NOT explain all othe scientific issues, he misses my Soft tissue points here completely. and Affirms my use of carbon 14. but because most of what he said was frame in a skeptical way it was reassuring to your current mind set. Your the one with the blinders you cannot seem to IMAGINE anything but the current sci-dogma to even entering your mind.
Some of what he mentioned i've already delt with, but you keep asking the same questions over and over as if you've never heard it.

the last part of what he mentioned is a straw man. And not the carbon-14 dating of the dino SOFT TISSUES that has been done and repeated. WITH REQUEST FOR OTHERS TO DO SO. It's not dating of Rocks but Biological material.
One scientist have been OFFERED a $20,000 grant to cardon-14 date the soft tissue he discovered in dinosaurs fossils BUT turned it down.
Carbon-14 dating is -as he stated- is the EXACT test to use for BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL, which is what you have in the dinosaur soft tissues found now in fossils in many places in the world.

that is the issue here Missle.

Again the few options for problems with this, other scientist have brought each up in an attempt to explain it away but they have been unable to.
Contamination: nope , test redone at various labs (and other scientist asked to redo them) no contamination.
Neutron capture from other radioactivity: Nope, not enough surrounding samples to account for the amount of carbon14. not enough anywhere near any samples.
It's really bio film not Dnio tissues: Nope, the its not bio film, it's cell structure show it to be collagen or veins or blood or other animal soft tissue, and again no contamination.

They do still assume that SOMEHOW the carbon14 atoms MUST HAVE gotten be there for some yet unknown reason other than the NORMAL WAY. But they have no PROOF or hard research that can explain it at this point.

If you want to ASSUME that there's another yet unknown explanation you are free to of course, but don't call that SCIENCE, that is in fact a form of faith.

the statements still stands.

[Missileman]

O jezz I put the half-baked skeptics added commentary version of the radio carbon basics video up.
that's more than i wanted to re-address here.

but Missile i'm sure that was comforting for you. however you didn't really listen to what the guy said. it does NOT explain all othe scientific issues, he misses my Soft tissue points here completely. and Affirms my use of carbon 14. but because most of what he said was frame in a skeptical way it was reassuring to your current mind set. Your the one with the blinders you cannot seem to IMAGINE anything but the current sci-dogma to even entering your mind.
Some of what he mentioned i've already delt with, but you keep asking the same questions over and over as if you've never heard it.

the last part of what he mentioned is a straw man. And not the carbon-14 dating of the dino SOFT TISSUES that has been done and repeated. WITH REQUEST FOR OTHERS TO DO SO. It's not dating of Rocks but Biological material.
One scientist have been OFFERED a $20,000 grant to cardon-14 date the soft tissue he discovered in dinosaurs fossils BUT turned it down.
Carbon-14 dating is -as he stated- is the EXACT test to use for BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL, which is what you have in the dinosaur soft tissues found now in fossils in many places in the world.

that is the issue here Missle.

Again the few options for problems with this, other scientist have brought each up in an attempt to explain it away but they have been unable to.
Contamination: nope , test redone at various labs (and other scientist asked to redo them) no contamination.
Neutron capture from other radioactivity: Nope, not enough surrounding samples to account for the amount of carbon14. not enough anywhere near any samples.
It's really bio film not Dnio tissues: Nope, the its not bio film, it's cell structure show it to be collagen or veins or blood or other animal soft tissue, and again no contamination.

They do still assume that SOMEHOW the carbon14 atoms MUST HAVE gotten be there for some yet unknown reason other than the NORMAL WAY. But they have no PROOF or hard research that can explain it at this point.

If you want to ASSUME that there's another yet unknown explanation you are free to of course, but don't call that SCIENCE, that is in fact a form of faith.

the statements still stands.

When you can rationally explain the existence of diamonds and coal with NO C14 at all in them(which makes them at a minimum 100,000 years old) on a planet you claim is only 6,000 years old, you'll be doing something other than blowing smoke up your own ass.

[revelarts]

When you can rationally explain the existence of diamonds and coal with NO C14 at all in them(which makes them at a minimum 100,000 years old) on a planet you claim is only 6,000 years old, you'll be doing something other than blowing smoke up your own ass.

So your just going to completely ignore all scientific evidence contrary to an old view. Your faith is stunning.

[Missileman]

So your just going to completely ignore all scientific evidence contrary to an old view. Your faith is stunning.

When I am presented scientific evidence that ALL dinosaur fossils have been incorrectly dated as 65 million years old as well as real evidence that the planet isn't nearly 4 billion years old and I then refuse to alter my position, THEN you can accuse me of ignoring evidence. You haven't presented anything even remotely close to such. BTW, where's your explanation of C14-less diamonds and coal on a 6,000 year-old planet?

[revelarts]

When I am presented scientific evidence that ALL dinosaur fossils have been incorrectly dated as 65 million years old
you can't carbon14 date fossils just soft tissue.
You cant really date the fossils except by inference -what layer is it found in- and by the assumed date of the geo columns.

but as i said there are many Soft tissues finds Those can be dated and as i've said , those -on their face- show that they are not millions of years old because soft tissue can't survive millions of years. so by Default those are dated wrong.



as well as real evidence that the planet isn't nearly 4 billion years old and I then refuse to alter my position, THEN you can accuse me of ignoring evidence. You haven't presented anything even remotely close to such.
what exactly is "real" evidence missile? I've presented scientific papers and discoveries and tried to explain the researched points the best i know how. what do you consider real evidence? Does a dinosaur have to whisper it's history in your ear?

As far as the age of the earth goes, All dating methods for the earth are based on historical science and those based on various assumptions or rates and origin, some good some not so good. there's unlikely to be any unquestionable definitive proof one way or the other, just a preponderances in various areas. depends on which areas you assume have the most weight.



BTW, where's your explanation of C14-less diamonds and coal on a 6,000 year-old planet?
Wouldn't do me much good to answer your question, you won't believe it anyway until ALL the fossils are redated and "real evidence":rolleyes: is given for the age of the earth. so whats the point.

[Gaffer]

In other words rev, you want to revise science facts to suit your own religious beliefs and everything you don't agree with is a conspiracy. The world is 4.5 billion years old whether you admit it or not. Evolution happens in all species in spite of you and your beliefs. Real science will continue to make discoveries and make changes in theories and hypothesis as new evidence is brought out. Creationist will still be trying to prove the world is flat.

[logroller]

"However, the radioactive material is being built into the organism only while it lives. Dead plants and animals don't breathe or build up their mass. From the moment of death on, all their C-14 is on a one-way trip toward becoming nitrogen."


the half life is apx 5000 years
cut 1 apple in half every 5000 years and you'll be down to 1/200th of an apple atoms in a million years. if the pieces are FAR bigger say 1/16th you know the apple hasn't been around that long. eventually they'll be no "apple".






1:33
"...out of every trillion carbon atoms in your body only one dozen of them are carbon 14.
As long as an organism is alive and eating it maintains a constant ratio of carbon fourteen to regular carbon but once the organism dies the amount of carbon fourteen in the body begins to decrease. After five thousand years about half of the original number of carbon 14 atoms will have decayed. Using this fact scientist can tell how long ago an organism died."




again Here's the thing. the dead tissue is losing carbon 14 constantly, so at some point the formerly living tissue has next to Zero carbon14 compared to regular carbon.


again if you've got a special dollar that you have to spend 1/2 of per day, then it's have life is one day.
the next day you'll have 50cents
the next day you'll have 25 cents
the next day you'll only have 12.5 cents
the next day you'll only have 6.25 cents.
etc..
If i meet you and you tell me you have 50 cents and can figure you had a dollar yesterday.
if you say you've got around say .00000000582 of a penny left we can know that you haven't had a dollar in over a month. after a while the amount gets so small you know it's past a year and it not even worth counting any more but in the abstract it's infinite


But with physical Atoms it will eventually get to zero. and the machines they use can literally count individual atoms so it's not a guessing game as to whether or not there are any carbon 14 atoms left.


So as i mention there should be zero because they decay back into nitrogen.


You guys mentioned a few options for problems with this, other scientist have brought each up in an attempt to explain it away but they have been unable to.
Contamination: nope , test redone at various labs (and other scientist asked to redo them) no contamination.
Neutron capture from other radioactivity: Nope, not enough surrounding samples to account for the amount of carbon14. not enough anywhere near any samples.
It's really bio film not Dnio tissues: Nope, the its not bio film, it's cell structure show it to be collagen or veins or blood or other animal soft tissue, and again no contamination.


They do still assume that SOMEHOW the carbon14 atoms MUST HAVE gotten be there for some yet unknown reason other than the NORMAL WAY. But they have no PROOF or hard research that can explain it at this point.


If you want to ASSUME that there's another yet unknown explanation you are free to of course,
but don't call that SCIENCE, that is in fact a form of faith.
In the space and time that we live in there's been evidence of a consistent amount of c14 in the atmosphere, about a few parts per trillion. This is present in ice cores and (once) living things and we can test and compare such. That doesn't mean that its always been that way; in fact its known that carbon14 is created In the atmosphere-- we know that happens, so nothing says it may NOT be that c14 was present at higher levels millions of years ago and that's what this discovery shows. Not that dinosaurs lived 25000 years ago.

[Missileman]

you can't carbon14 date fossils just soft tissue. There are other radiometric dating methods besides C14 used for older specimens


As far as the age of the earth goes, All dating methods for the earth are based on historical science and those based on various assumptions or rates and origin, some good some not so good. there's unlikely to be any unquestionable definitive proof one way or the other, just a preponderances in various areas. depends on which areas you assume have the most weight.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Modern dating methods[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&action=edit&section=6)]Radiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Invention_of_radiometric_dating) by Ernest Rutherford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford) as a method by which one might determine the age of the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth). In the century since then the techniques have been greatly improved and expanded.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-usgs-15) Dating can now be performed on samples as small as a nanogram using a mass spectrometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometer). The mass spectrometer was invented in the 1940s and began to be used in radiometric dating in the 1950s. The mass spectrometer operates by generating a beam of ionized atoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion) from the sample under test. The ions then travel through a magnetic field, which diverts them into different sampling sensors, known as "Faraday cups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cup)", depending on their mass and level of ionization. On impact in the cups, the ions set up a very weak current that can be measured to determine the rate of impacts and the relative concentrations of different atoms in the beams.
Uranium-lead dating method[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&action=edit&section=7)]Main article: uranium-lead dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Pfunze_belt_concordia.png/500px-Pfunze_belt_concordia.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pfunze_belt_concordia.png) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.22wmf21/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pfunze_belt_concordia.png)
A concordia diagram as used in uranium-lead dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating), with data from the Pfunze Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pfunze_Belt&action=edit&redlink=1), Zimbabwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe).[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-17) All the samples show loss of lead isotopes, but the intercept of the errorchron (straight line through the sample points) and the concordia (curve) shows the correct age of the rock.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-Rollinson-12)


The uranium-lead radiometric dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating) scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-Oberthuer-13)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-18) An error margin of 2–5% has been achieved on younger Mesozoic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesozoic) rocks.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-19)
Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral) zircon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon) (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials, such as baddeleyite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baddeleyite).[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-20) Zircon and baddeleyite incorporate uranium atoms into their crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium), but strongly reject lead. Zircon has a very high closure temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICP-MS) or SIMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_ion_mass_spectrometry) techniques.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-21)
One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.
Samarium-neodymium dating method[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&action=edit&section=8)]Main article: Samarium-neodymium dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium-neodymium_dating)
This involves the alpha-decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-decay) of 147Sm to 143Nd with a half-life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life) of 1.06 x 1011 years. Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-22)
Potassium-argon dating method[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&action=edit&section=9)]Main article: Potassium-argon dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating)
This involves electron capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture) or positron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron) decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mica), feldspars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldspar), and hornblendes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornblende), though the closure temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 125°C (mica) to 450°C (hornblende).
Rubidium-strontium dating method[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&action=edit&section=10)]Main article: Rubidium-strontium dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium-strontium_dating)
This is based on the beta decay of rubidium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium)-87 to strontium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium)-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous_rocks) and metamorphic rocks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphic_rocks), and has also been used to date lunar samples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock). Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.
Uranium-thorium dating method[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&action=edit&section=11)]Main article: uranium-thorium dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-thorium_dating)
A relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, a substance with a half-life of about 80,000 years. It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years.
While uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium) is water-soluble, thorium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium) and protactinium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protactinium) are not, and so they are selectively precipitated into ocean-floor sediments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sediment), from which their ratios are measured. The scheme has a range of several hundred thousand years. A related method is ionium-thorium dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionium-thorium_dating), which measures the ratio of ionium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionium) (thorium-230) to thorium-232 in ocean sediment.
Radiocarbon dating method[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&action=edit&section=12)]Main article: Radiocarbon dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Ales_stenar_bred.jpg/300px-Ales_stenar_bred.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ales_stenar_bred.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.22wmf21/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ales_stenar_bred.jpg)
Ale's Stones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ale%27s_Stones) at Kåseberga, around ten kilometres south east of Ystad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ystad), Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden) were dated at 600 CE using the carbon-14 method on organic material found at the site.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-23)


Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, with a half-life of 5,730 years,[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-24)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-25) which is very short compared with the above isotopes. In other radiometric dating methods, the heavy parent isotopes were produced by nucleosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis) in supernovas, meaning that any parent isotope with a short half-life should be extinct by now. Carbon-14, though, is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays) with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere) and thus remains at a near-constant level on Earth. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) (CO2).
An organism acquires carbon during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through photosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis), and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When an organism dies, it ceases to take in new carbon-14, and the existing isotope decays with a characteristic half-life (5730 years). The proportion of carbon-14 left when the remains of the organism are examined provides an indication of the time elapsed since its death. The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-26)
The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano) or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates. The releases of carbon dioxide into the biosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere) as a consequence of industrialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization) have also depressed the proportion of carbon-14 by a few percent; conversely, the amount of carbon-14 was increased by above-ground nuclear bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bomb) tests that were conducted into the early 1960s. Also, an increase in the solar wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind) or the Earth's magnetic field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field) above the current value would depress the amount of carbon-14 created in the atmosphere. These effects are corrected for by the calibration of the radiocarbon dating scale.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-27)
Fission track dating method[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&action=edit&section=13)]Main article: fission track dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_track_dating)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Apatite_crystals.jpg/200px-Apatite_crystals.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apatite_crystals.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.22wmf21/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apatite_crystals.jpg)
Apatite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatite) crystals are widely used in fission track dating.


This involves inspection of a polished slice of a material to determine the density of "track" markings left in it by the spontaneous fission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_fission) of uranium-238 impurities. The uranium content of the sample has to be known, but that can be determined by placing a plastic film over the polished slice of the material, and bombarding it with slow neutrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_neutrons). This causes induced fission of 235U, as opposed to the spontaneous fission of 238U. The fission tracks produced by this process are recorded in the plastic film. The uranium content of the material can then be calculated from the number of tracks and the neutron flux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux).
This scheme has application over a wide range of geologic dates. For dates up to a few million years micas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mica), tektites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektite) (glass fragments from volcanic eruptions), and meteorites are best used. Older materials can be dated using zircon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon), apatite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatite), titanite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanite), epidote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidote) and garnet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnet) which have a variable amount of uranium content.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-28) Because the fission tracks are healed by temperatures over about 200°C the technique has limitations as well as benefits. The technique has potential applications for detailing the thermal history of a deposit.
Chlorine-36 dating method[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&action=edit&section=14)]Large amounts of otherwise rare 36Cl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine-36) were produced by irradiation of seawater during atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon) between 1952 and 1958. The residence time of 36Cl in the atmosphere is about 1 week. Thus, as an event marker of 1950s water in soil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil) and ground water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_water), 36Cl is also useful for dating waters less than 50 years before the present. 36Cl has seen use in other areas of the geological sciences, including dating ice and sediments.
Luminescence dating methods[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&action=edit&section=15)]Main articles: Optical dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_dating) and Thermoluminescence dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoluminescence_dating)
Natural sources of radiation in the environment knock loose electrons in, say, a piece of pottery, and these electrons accumulate in defects in the material's crystal lattice structure. Heating or illuminating the object will release the captured electrons, producing a luminescence. When the sample is heated, at a certain temperature it will glow from the emission of electrons released from the defects, and this glow can be used to estimate the age of the sample to a threshold of approximately 15 percent of its true age. The date of a rock is reset when volcanic activity remelts it. The date of a piece of pottery is reset by the heat of the kiln. Typically temperatures greater than 400 degrees Celsius will reset the "clock". This is termed thermoluminescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoluminescence).
I suppose none of these methods meet your "pseudo-scientific" standards either. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't do me much good to answer your question, you won't believe it anyway until ALL the fossils are redated and "real evidence":rolleyes: is given for the age of the earth. so whats the point.
Really...I'm all ears. Please explain how something at least 100,000 years old can exist on your 6,000 year-old planet.

[revelarts]

Missile I'll be glad to discuss the other radiometric dating techniques and the age of the earth in more detail.
as long as you acknowledge the facts I've presented so far.
If you can't do that, all it looks like I'll end up doing is giving you more information to 1st deny and then ignore.
Then you'd asked me another question on a different topic and another...
Do you accept that the discovery of the dinosaur soft tissues and their carbon-14 dating proves that those dinosaurs, thought to be 65 or millions of year old, were in fact alive, not millions of years ago, but less than 50,000 years ago?

I've given you PLENTY of evidence for it.
If you can't acknowledge it why should i try to show you other information that you don't want to believe either?

[Missileman]

Missile I'll be glad to discuss the other radiometric dating techniques and the age of the earth in more detail.
as long as you acknowledge the facts I've presented so far.
If you can't do that, all it looks like I'll end up doing is giving you more information to 1st deny and then ignore.
Then you'd asked me another question on a different topic and another...
Do you accept that the discovery of the dinosaur soft tissues and their carbon-14 dating proves that those dinosaurs, thought to be 65 or millions of year old, were in fact alive, not millions of years ago, but less than 50,000 years ago?

I've given you PLENTY of evidence for it.
If you can't acknowledge it why should i try to show you other information that you don't want to believe either?

Until you can establish for a fact that the C14 in that dinosaur bone is a remnant of its original C14 content, you can't say with any certainty that the remains are only thousands of years old. And I've only asked you the one question which you still haven't answered. As for evidence, you can't offer any real evidence for something that according to you can't exist.

[revelarts]

Until you can establish for a fact that the C14 in that dinosaur bone is a remnant of its original C14 content, you can't say with any certainty that the remains are only thousands of years old. And I've only asked you the one question which you still haven't answered. As for evidence, you can't offer any real evidence for something that according to you can't exist.

It's from Dinosaur soft tissue. that's how it's established. It's not bone. it's cartilage, veins and other biological cells. so it's from the original C14. C14 decrees in bio material after death.
It's standard dating method. no one assumes an INCREASE in bio C14 counts...unless it conflict with the dogma.
but less assume that IT MIGHT have (by some unknown process that has to be guessed at because it's undocumented scientifically) increased in one place, for one sample, but the C14 test have been on various soft tissue from various sources and all have C14 which by default show the animals died 1000s of years ago rather than millions.

But you have faith that there's another "scientific" explanation, or that one will be found one day ... or that It's just wrong because... it's wrong... ok that's fine Missile.
i'm Moving on

.........

[Missileman]

It's from Dinosaur soft tissue. that's how it's established. It's not bone. it's cartilage, veins and other biological cells. so it's from the original C14. C14 decrees in bio material after death.
It's standard dating method. no one assumes an INCREASE in bio C14 counts...unless it conflict with the dogma.
but less assume that IT MIGHT have (by some unknown process that has to be guessed at because it's undocumented scientifically) increased in one place, for one sample, but the C14 test have been on various soft tissue from various sources and all have C14 which by default show the animals died 1000s of years ago rather than millions.

But you have faith that there's another "scientific" explanation, or that one will be found one day ... or that It's just wrong because... it's wrong... ok that's fine Missile.
i'm Moving on

.........

You are disregarding that C14 can be increased in anything that contains carbon. Your declaration that any C14 is original is laughable.

[gabosaurus]

Dog and Ma:

http://rottguy.com/images/Puppy-&-Mom.jpg

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pS5j3XccmUM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/U0u3-2CGOMQ?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[pete311]

I used to get all worked up about readying these types of topics here. But I am now at peace with the fact that society has been and will continue to progress in spite of the ignorance here. The crackpot opinions here are the tiny minority. I'm part of the largest physics community on the web and I can say for a fact these crackpot opinions are just that. It's not hard to find a few crackpot youtube videos or researchers and make a claim. But they are not respected or followed seriously. Let me pose one question to those who are doubtful of science. If you visit 100 dentists and 98 tell you that you need a filling. Do you trust the 98 or 2? Of course you get the filling. This is what we see here. These crackpots are supporting the 2 when the overwhelming respected majority follow real science.

furthermore if you are so anti science, then go live in a cave somewhere eating cherries because you are the king of cherry picking.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I used to get all worked up about readying these types of topics here. But I am now at peace with the fact that society has been and will continue to progress in spite of the ignorance here. The crackpot opinions here are the tiny minority. I'm part of the largest physics community on the web and I can say for a fact these crackpot opinions are just that. It's not hard to find a few crackpot youtube videos or researchers and make a claim. But they are not respected or followed seriously. Let me pose one question to those who are doubtful of science. If you visit 100 dentists and 98 tell you that you need a filling. Do you trust the 98 or 2? Of course you get the filling. This is what we see here. These crackpots are supporting the 2 when the overwhelming respected majority follow real science.

furthermore if you are so anti science, then go live in a cave somewhere eating cherries because you are the king of cherry picking. Yes, the "holy" scientists that have all the answers.. Except they don't. THEY HAVE FOR DECADES PITCHED EVOLUTION AS IF IT WAS A PROVEN FACT. They now present man made global warming as a fact when the little evidence they have (and often misrepresent) isn't enough to make any kind of informed judgment. The time frame for looking at this and our relationship with our Sun is so brief as to be meaningless. Yet holy scientists declare man caused global warming to be a fact.. bullshat.. --Tyr

[pete311]

Yes, the "holy" scientists that have all the answers.. Except they don't. THEY HAVE FOR DECADES PITCHED EVOLUTION AS IF IT WAS A PROVEN FACT. They now present man made global warming as a fact when the little evidence they have (and often misrepresent) isn't enough to make any kind of informed judgment. The time frame for looking at this and our relationship with our Sun is so brief as to be meaningless. Yet holy scientists declare man caused global warming to be a fact.. bullshat.. --Tyr

Enjoy continuing to have an irrelevant opinion. Go live in a cave. It's really amazing how medicine and technology keep moving to new heights when science has it all wrong. What luck!

[revelarts]

I used to get all worked up about readying these types of topics here. But I am now at peace with the fact that society has been and will continue to progress in spite of the ignorance here. The crackpot opinions here are the tiny minority. I'm part of the largest physics community on the web and I can say for a fact these crackpot opinions are just that. It's not hard to find a few crackpot youtube videos or researchers and make a claim. But they are not respected or followed seriously. Let me pose one question to those who are doubtful of science. If you visit 100 dentists and 98 tell you that you need a filling. Do you trust the 98 or 2? Of course you get the filling. This is what we see here. These crackpots are supporting the 2 when the overwhelming respected majority follow real science.

furthermore if you are so anti science, then go live in a cave somewhere eating cherries because you are the king of cherry picking.


Enjoy continuing to have an irrelevant opinion. Go live in a cave. It's really amazing how medicine and technology keep moving to new heights when science has it all wrong. What luck!

So your "proof" is the Majority view.
that's Science?

if more scientist BELIEVE it, then it must be true. OK if that works for you fine.
Galileo was in the scientific minority, but the church was going along with the Ptolemaic scientific majority of the day ,
Ignaz Semmelweis (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ignaz_semmelweis.htm) was in the scientific minority, so was Darwin initially.

Personally i always thought the facts made a scientific "truth". you say it's MAJORITY VIEW.

you say a dentist LOOKS at your teeth.
here' the difference
I've made this point several times.
Real science is LOOKING AT and examining something in front of you or doing an experiments that are repeatable that prove certain scientific facts.

what does evolution do.
It looks at rocks, stars and animals today and ASSUMES HISTORY, based on various presuppositions.

It's by definition it's unrepeatable. And the experiment done trying to show some small portion of the theoretical process in action have FAILED and frankly disapproven the possibility of it ever happening.
Can you do some historical science, sure, it's called forensic science. And in good forensic science you have to look at all evidence and not ASSUME you know what the past was then try ONLY to prove it. Or cover up and IGNORE evidence that does not conform to the presuppose conclusions of the current majority.

a good forensic scientist when confronted with evidence that contradicts his assumed conclusions would , at the least, say, 'yes this evidence is a problem for my THEORY of history'. Enough contrary evidence and he'll say, 'I'll have to remain agnostic on what the evidence shows because there's conflicting evidence...'.
But a true believer, dogmatist and a hack will say, the MAJORITY has spoken THEREFORE we believe Thus-&-So , and if your not with us you should be shunned or go can live in cave.

[pete311]

revelarts, it's truly pointless to engage with you. As I said before, I am at peace with the fact that your entire range of influence is this irrelevant soap box forum. Science will continue to blaze forward without your misunderstood opinions. I promise to come back in 20 years and we'll just see how much science didn't understand. I'm sure it's all been luck this far. Lucky your computer works. After all we just put it together without any understanding. Oh and if you get cancer, don't get treatment. We have no idea. It's all luck. Might as well give you sugar pills.

[revelarts]

revelarts, it's truly pointless to engage with you. As I said before, I am at peace with the fact that your entire range of influence is this irrelevant soap box forum. Science will continue to blaze forward without your misunderstood opinions. I promise to come back in 20 years and we'll just see how much science didn't understand. I'm sure it's all been luck this far. Lucky your computer works. After all we just put it together without any understanding. Oh and if you get cancer, don't get treatment. We have no idea. It's all luck. Might as well give you sugar pills.

well look Pete I'm glad your at peace.
kinda easy when You've ignored my main point and again conflated experimental science with the poor historical forensic science of evolution.

I'm sure we'll come back in 20 years and find that evolutionary "science" has added nothing to the creation or advancement of computers, medicine, engineering or physics. We already know it hasn't added to any of those to get where we are today.

[pete311]

I'm sure we'll come back in 20 years and find that evolutionary "science" has added nothing to the creation or advancement of computers, medicine, engineering or physics.

might want to rethink that 2nd list item as it's been true for near a century

[Drummond]

Pete, I get the impression that your faith in science is total.

That's all very well. However, its advancement is only as good as the minds which work to further it. Tyr's raised an excellent point about Global Warming predictions, hasn't he ?

http://clashdaily.com/2013/12/exactly-five-years-ago-al-gore-predicted-north-pole-will-ice-free-5-years/


FIVE YEARS AGO LAST FRIDAY— Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

This wasn’t the only time Gore made his ice-free prediction. Gore’s been predicting this since 2007. That means that this year the North Pole should be completely melted by now.

This is just hilarious ...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17277-global-warming-alarmists-stuck-in-antarctic-sea-ice

I say, look at it this way. Whatever the worth of science, it's limited by the minds which spur its development forwards. We are a limited species, after all .. we have limits to our intelligence, so our capacity to understand is likewise curtailed. To suppose there can be unlimited truths follow from a process which has severe limitations inbuilt into it, is, it seems to me, thoroughly illogical.

However - is God limited ? If you think so, Pete, present your case ....

[revelarts]

might want to rethink that 2nd list item as it's been true for near a century

No need to rethink it.
the idea that evolution has added to medical science is false.
and even in genetic science the idea that we evolved HELD back research because it was ASSUMED that most of the human DNA would be JUNK so they didn't look for function for years.
ALSO because of evolution Dr.s and researchers ASSUME/D that humans have "vestigial organs" and so they can cut them out without negative effect. But to date once researchers look for function of organs, tonsils, appendices "tail bone" etc.. they've found function.

In these and other areas of medical research assuming evolutionary theory is correct has been a true hindrance to real scientific medical advancement and research.
I'm open to here of examples where it has. Some advancements do come by accident. looking for one thing and finding another. so it's not impossible.
but Direct advancement in medicine based on the idea that we are evolved? I could be wrong but just give me clear examples please.

[pete311]

Virology and Immunology is based on evolutionary science. We wouldn't have antibiotics if we didn't understand how organisms change over time. After all that is all evolution science is. The study of how organisms change over time. Don't share with me your usual tired canned statements about fossils and frog turning into a pony.

[revelarts]

Virology and Immunology is based on evolutionary science. We wouldn't have antibiotics if we didn't understand how organisms change over time. After all that is all evolution science is. The study of how organisms change over time. Don't share with me your usual tired canned statements about fossils and frog turning into a pony.

well ok , no virus has ever turned into anything but ... variations on the same viruses.
no bacteria has turned into anything but variations on the same bacteria.

If that's all you consider evolution sure. I'll agree. that's all evolution has ever been.

[pete311]

well ok , no virus has ever turned into anything but ... variations on the same viruses.
no bacteria has turned into anything but variations on the same bacteria.

If that's all you consider evolution sure. I'll agree. that's all evolution has ever been.

The same processes are at work. It's just a difference in time. Humans who live a mere 70 years have a hard time truly comprehending the power of hundreds of millions of years.

Species lines are actually fairly ambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

[revelarts]

The same processes are at work. It's just a difference in time. Humans who live a mere 70 years have a hard time truly comprehending the power of hundreds of millions of years.

Species lines are actually fairly ambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
I've got a fair imagination i comprehend a lot of weird stuff and imagine a lot of things.
but when we want to talk about science we have to use empirical evidence. Huge extrapolations on the imagined power of millions of years is not evidence. it's theory. and speculation.

the empirical evidence only show us viruses turning into viruses. dogs into various dogs. Finches into finches.

there's no scientific evidence for more than that and in fact the data shows that the amount of change, the extra/NEW information needed and the chance + natural selection mechanism is just not enough to do what people claim it will do.
mathematicians and geneticist have run the numbers, it's not possible.

In fact genetic entropy is causing the genes of every living thing to degenerate to lesser complexity/fitness.
The geneticist that wrote the "Bible" of quantitative genetics ,Michael Lynch, estimates, based on the the data, that humans have a 1 -5% in loss in fitness (or bad mutations, broken parts of the gene) in each generation.

Based on the current evidence we have, there is no number years or data that shows any mutational 'benefits' that could reverse or compensate for the overwhelming degradation at work at a genetic level. Bad mutations are the norm and scientist are pressed to the wall to find ANY "good" mutations. The power of millions of years just make the degradation deeper and longer. Some geneticist even question how humans as a species are even here, IF humans have been around as long as they say, we should have degenerated out of existence "a hundred times over". If you simply extrapolate backwards from the current evidence.
rather than dogmatically assuming evolution did it somehow.

[pete311]

it's theory.

scientific theory (a theory that explains scientific observations) "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=scientific%20theory

To date there is no credible peer reviewed scientific experiment that disproves the theory. We're talking thousands, from all over the world.

Just because you have questions doesn't prove the theory wrong. It just means you need to hit the books and learn it. Even if science can't explain it all, doesn't make it wrong, it means we just need to figure it out. we are still figuring out gravity and that is a law.

fyi genetic entropy was developed by a creationist crackpot scientist. it's not followed in the scientific community. you really need to learn to read from credible peer reviewed sources. I can also likely find a nutjob scientist who thinks Einstein was an alien and wrote a book about it. doesn't make it worth reading.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Enjoy continuing to have an irrelevant opinion. Go live in a cave. It's really amazing how medicine and technology keep moving to new heights when science has it all wrong. What luck!
A mighty high opinion of yourself you appear to have. Go live in a cave you say as if you are some great authority on it all. Is that MASSIVE "scientific ego" you have or just the regular ole bullshat kind SO MANY OTHER ARROGANT CHUMPS HAVE? I tell ya what pedro prove your opinion carries more weight than mine or any other poster's opinion here.. Give verifiable proof and none of that global warming type hocus pocus made up shat they passed off for years and were finally made to come clean about. As you act as if this scientific consensus means something and is not just political maneuvering to push an agenda around the world. I'd advise you to study world history a tad better .. And science told us the known universe was 20% smaller than they now 60 years later admit it is. Seems errors are easy to correct just wave a wand and give new numbers. Its that kind of inaccuracy you blow a horn pretending doesn't exist. -Tyr


http://www.space.com/2707-universe-bigger-older-expected.html
Universe Might be Bigger and Older than Expected

by Ker Than, Staff Writer | August 07, 2006 06:16am ET

A project aiming to create an easier way to measure cosmic distances has instead turned up surprising evidence that our large and ancient universe might be even bigger and older than previously thought.

If accurate, the finding would be difficult to mesh with current thinking about how the universe evolved, one scientist said.

A research team led by Alceste Bonanos at the Carnegie Institution of Washington has found that the Triangulum Galaxy, also known as M33, is about 15 percent farther away from our own Milky Way than previously calculated.
A new way to measure distance

The researchers reached their surprising conclusion after using a new method they invented to calculate intergalactic distances, one that they say is more precise and requires fewer steps than standard techniques.

"We wanted an independent measure of distance--a single step that will one day help with measuring dark energy and other things," said study team member Krzysztof Stanek from Ohio State University.

The new method took 10 years to develop and relied on optical and infrared measurements gathered from telescopes all around the world. The researchers looked at a binary star system in M33 where the stars eclipsed each other every five days. Unlike single stars, the masses of paired stars can be precisely calculated based on their movements. With knowledge of the stars' masses, the researchers could calculate their true luminosities, or how bright they would appear if they were nearby.

The difference between the true luminosity and the observed luminosity gives the distance between the stars and Earth. The team's results suggested that the stars were about 3 million light-years from Earth--or about half-a-million light-years farther than would be expected using the commonly accepted Hubble constant value


http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/07/image-of-the-day-our-lopsided-universe-is-darker-lighter-slower-older-more-mysterious-than-we-though.html
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/21mar_cmb/
March 21, 2013: Europe's Planck spacecraft has obtained the most accurate and detailed map ever made of the oldest light in the universe. The map results suggest the universe is expanding more slowly than scientists thought, and is 13.8 billion years old, 100 million years older than previous estimates. The data also show there is less dark energy and more matter in the universe than previously known.

"Astronomers worldwide have been on the edge of their seats waiting for this map," said Joan Centrella, Planck program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "These measurements are profoundly important to many areas of science, as well as future space missions. We are so pleased to have worked with the European Space Agency on such a historic endeavor."

The newly estimated expansion rate of the universe, known as Hubble's constant, is 67.15 plus or minus 1.2 kilometers/second/megaparsec. A megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years. This is less than prior estimates derived from space telescopes, such as NASA's Spitzer and Hubble, using a different technique. The new estimate of dark matter content in the universe is 26.8 percent, up from 24 percent, while dark energy falls to 68.3 percent, down from 71.4 percent. Normal matter now is 4.9 percent, up from 4.6 percent.
So your amazing declarations on science being so accurate are just opinions you have, no better than anybody else's opinion presented here.. I could give more examples but this should suffice IMHO.-Tyr

[pete311]

I tell ya what pedro prove your opinion carries more weight than mine or any other poster's opinion here.

I'm throwing in with the brilliant minds that study this stuff for decades, not some soap box forum fluffs.



As you act as if this scientific consensus means something and is not just political maneuvering to push an agenda around the world.

Hate the politics, not the science.



And science told us the known universe was 20% smaller than they now 60 years later admit it is.

Given how enourmous the universe is, 20% off is not bad. Science is just scratching the surface, but it's gotta us pretty darn far already. Why bet against it. I'm throwing in with the guys that can send men to space, who develop MRI, who develop cancer fighting drugs, who develop fibre optic networks, who create nano sized quantum computers etc.

[revelarts]

scientific theory (a theory that explains scientific observations) "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=scientific%20theory

To date there is no credible peer reviewed scientific experiment that disproves the theory. We're talking thousands, from all over the world.

Just because you have questions doesn't prove the theory wrong. It just means you need to hit the books and learn it. Even if science can't explain it all, doesn't make it wrong, it means we just need to figure it out.

fyi genetic entropy was developed by a creationist crackpot scientist. it's not followed in the scientific community. you really need to learn to read from credible peer reviewed sources

If macro evolution takes millions of years, and is not seen experimentally today, then it's NOT falsifiable experimentally is it?
So it's not a good theory maybe it should be called a scientific hypothesis, maybe not that.

As far as "credible" experiments go, well if it's against evolution many consider it less than credible by default.
are you OPEN to any refutations?

"Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome
Dr. John Sanford, a retired Cornell Professor, shows in "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" that the "Primary Axiom" is false. The Primary Axiom is the foundational evolutionary premise -- that life is merely the result of mutations and natural selection. In addition to showing compelling theoretical evidence that whole genomes must in fact degenerate over time, this book strongly refutes the Darwinian concept that man is just the result of a random and pointless natural process. This is an updated version of the October 2005 edition, which includes both a new appendix and glossary."

The "crackpot" who created the Gene Gun you mean?
And he's explained that all the relevant genetic literature and experimentation shows DOWNWARD not upward genetic progression.
show us experimental data otherwise, mutational improvement, and NEW good genetic information .

[pete311]

If macro evolution takes millions of years, and is not seen experimentally today, then it's NOT falsifiable experimentally is it?
So it's not a good theory maybe it should be called a scientific hypothesis, maybe not that.


Macroevolution is microevolution on a bigger scale over a long time. I don't understand your obsession with needing to watch a dog turn into a pony in 5 years.



The "crackpot" who created the Gene Gun you mean?
And he's explained that all the relevant genetic literature and experimentation shows DOWNWARD not upward genetic progression.
show us experimental data otherwise, mutational improvement, and NEW good genetic information .

Yup crackpot. btw, this is the problem with cherry picking and why it's important to look at the scientific community as a whole. No scientist is infallible. Einstein was wrong about some things. Darwin was wrong about some things. Newton was wrong about some things. This is the power of peer review. Everyone has holes and everyone has nutty ideas, but when you have a community of scientists (thousands) reviewing and working together you get something pretty damn reliable. Genetic entropy has never been accepted.

[revelarts]

Macroevolution is microevolution on a bigger scale over a long time.
as a scientist don't you have to prove that instead of just assuming it.
I don't understand why you would make the HUGE leap of evidence.
what we SEE is only dog to dogs, fish to fish, bacteria to bacteria, WHY assume it does more than that, when the genetics don't give ANY evidence to be able to do more.


Yup crackpot. btw, this is the problem with cherry picking and why it's important to look at the scientific community as a whole. No scientist is infallible. Einstein was wrong about some things. Darwin was wrong about some things. Newton was wrong about some things. This is the power of peer review. Everyone has holes and everyone has nutty ideas, but when you have a community of scientists (thousands) reviewing and working together you get something pretty damn reliable. Genetic entropy has never been accepted.

If the guy is a crackpot because he's shown evolution to be false, then your not operating on a really scientific basis.
You have to prove him and otehrs wrong.
Some of Newtons math is proved wrong experimentally and mathematically . You've just called the guy a name and ask me to rely on majority opinion which has not experimental or scientifically addressed the facts.

[pete311]

as a scientist don't you have to prove that instead of just assuming it.


first off, there are no proofs in science, just enough evidence to make it a theory or law. second, yes, I've said before we have enough converging lines of evidence for the scientific community to agree evolution is a real mechanism



If the guy is a crackpot because he's shown evolution to be false, then your not operating on a really scientific basis.

He wrote a book. That is not a peer reviewed scientific experiment that falsifies evolution. I googled a bit and the only sites that talk about genetic entropy are creationist sites.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm throwing in with the brilliant minds that study this stuff for decades, not some soap box forum fluffs.



Hate the politics, not the science.



Given how enourmous the universe is, 20% off is not bad. Science is just scratching the surface, but it's gotta us pretty darn far already. Why bet against it. I'm throwing in with the guys that can send men to space, who develop MRI, who develop cancer fighting drugs, who develop fibre optic networks, who create nano sized quantum computers etc. As if there are not scientists that deny it now.


http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&FuseAction=Minority.Blogs Blogs - Blogs
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

December 20, 2007



Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:47 AM ET

Update: U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 - Released: December 11, 2008 -

Link to Updated 2008 Full 231 Page PDF Report

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)

UPDATE: Former Vice President Al Gore responds to Senate report within hours of release. (LINK)

UPDATE: 2/22/08: Senate report impacting climate debate. Sampling of international coverage of report: UK Telegraph; Boston Herald; Canada’s National Post; New York Times; Fox News; CNNMoney.com; Human Events; Croatia’s Javno; The Cincinnati Enquirer; WorldNetDaily.com; United Press International (UPI); Spero News; New Zealand Herald; CNSNews.com; Real Clear Politics; PA’s Morning Call; Investor's Business Daily; Philippine’s Manila Standard; Colorado Springs Gazette; Canada Free Press; Belfast Telegraph; Newsmax.com; CA’s Orange County Register; Nashua Telegraph; Yahoo News; & Australia’s Herald Sun;

UPDATE: IMPACT: Scientist ponders reconsidering his view of man-made climate fears after Senate report of 400 scientists (LINK)



INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.



“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ] Too many well respected scientists now dispute the findings and the cheering going on . With that many well known and respected scientists going against it I'd say you should be having second doubts. Or did you know it was that many? --Tyr

[pete311]

As if there are not scientists that deny it now.
Too many well respected scientists now dispute the findings and the cheering going on . With that many well known and respected scientists going against it I'd say you should be having second doubts. Or did you know it was that many? --Tyr

Of course there are some that deny it. I could likely find 400 scientists that still think the earth is flat. The vast majority believe the evidence. Furthermore, the claim was against man made global warming. We have the data. The climate is changing. I'm ok with doubt on whether humans alone caused it.

[revelarts]

... just enough evidence to make it a theory or law. second, yes, I've said before we have enough converging lines of evidence for the scientific community to agree evolution is a real mechanism

.

Earlier you said a theory must be falsifiable.
now it only has to have "just enough evidence"
and you assert that "you've said" there are other lines of evidence.
and again appeal to majority dogma... i mean opinion.

the evidence supporting most other scientific theories are many times more accessible and experimental than the grand extrapolations, guess work and the hidden magic found in millions of years



He wrote a book. That is not a peer reviewed scientific experiment that falsifies evolution. I googled a bit and the only sites that talk about genetic entropy are creationist sites
.

The guy is no crackpot.
here's a bit of his CV did you see it?

... Dr. Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford#cite_note-2)

Inventions
Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_gun)".[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford#cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford#cite_note-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford#cite_note-5) He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology) companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor.

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
Sanford has argued for devolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_%28biology%29) in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005, 2008).,[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford#cite_note-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford#cite_note-7) He summarized all evolutionary major population models in the Appendix.

Mendel's Accountant
Sanford and colleagues developed the quantitative forward genetic modeling program Mendel's Accountant (http://mendelsaccountant.info/). Sanford et al. published two peer reviewed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_reviewed) papers dealing with genetic entropy in computing journals concerned with modeling methodology.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford#cite_note-8)[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford#cite_note-9)
Based on quantitative modeling evidence developed using Mendel's Accountant and from the mutation evidence he compiled, Sanford holds that the genome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome) is deteriorating and therefore could not have evolved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) in the way specified by the modern evolutionary synthesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis)...

[pete311]

btw there is a film called chasing ice, i had the pleasure of spending 3 weeks with the director. on one 3 mile wide glacier he filmed for 3 years it had retreated 8 miles. amazing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4

[Gaffer]

btw there is a film called chasing ice, i had the pleasure of spending 3 weeks with the director. on one 3 mile wide glacier he filmed for 3 years it had retreated 8 miles. amazing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4

I don't get it. You argue yourself blue in the face for evolution, yet you accept the false reports about global warming as gospel truth. I can fully agree with you on evolution, but I don't for a minute buy into man made global warming. I don't care how many glaciers melt, it's not caused by man. The glaciers will return with the next ice age. Which they said we were entering into back in the 70's.

If you melt all the ice in the arctic you won't effect the sea level at all, because that ice is all floating up there. Like melting an ice cube in a glass of water. Once it melts the water level doesn't change.

Who paid that director to make that film? the govt? a foundation? You might want to look into the money source. My guess is it's either govt or the tides foundation.

[pete311]

I don't for a minute buy into man made global warming. I don't care how many glaciers melt, it's not caused by man.

What then do you think is responsible for the doubling of C02 in the last 100 years?

[Missileman]

What then do you think is responsible for the doubling of C02 in the last 100 years?

What then do you think is responsible for the recent cooling trend? They had to abandon "warming" for "change" when their dire predictions failed to come to pass. Explain how temps have gone down while CO2 has increased.

[pete311]

What then do you think is responsible for the recent cooling trend? They had to abandon "warming" for "change" when their dire predictions failed to come to pass. Explain how temps have gone down while CO2 has increased.

Can you post a source

[Missileman]

Can you post a source

Tons of data and links to official data sources here: http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/

[Gaffer]

What then do you think is responsible for the doubling of C02 in the last 100 years?

Fudged reports.

[pete311]

I will leave this discussion with the following link
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/12/the_five_elements_of_denialism.html

[Missileman]

I will leave this discussion with the following link
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/12/the_five_elements_of_denialism.html

There is no consensus that human produced CO2 is responsible for climate change. BTW, did you check out my sources and have you been able to reconcile temps going down while CO2 increased?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm throwing in with the brilliant minds that study this stuff for decades, not some soap box forum fluffs.



Hate the politics, not the science.



Given how enourmous the universe is, 20% off is not bad. Science is just scratching the surface, but it's gotta us pretty darn far already. Why bet against it. I'm throwing in with the guys that can send men to space, who develop MRI, who develop cancer fighting drugs, who develop fibre optic networks, who create nano sized quantum computers etc. Really , 20% of a hundred is 20. Granted not a huge number. 20% of a trillion is 200 billion!! Not a small number. So a 20% increase in the size of the known universe represents a staggering number. As a 9th grade student I argued with the teacher that the known universe was almost surely much larger than they then predicted it was THEN AND LIKELY MUCH OLDER. MR. DAVIS FINALLY RELENTED BY YEARS END AND ADMITTED HE THOUGHT I WAS FAR MORE LIKELY TO BE RIGHT THAN HE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN. We had argued this in class several times so he announced to the entire class his change of heart on the topic! And while we are at it "scientific man" gets to make limitations like "known"--and --unknown universe. I used to laugh at this even as a freshman in high school. If part of the Universe within infinite space is known THEN ANY ESTIMATES OF THE REMAINDER'S SIZE, QUANTITY OF GALAXIES , STARS ETC IS 100% PURE SPECULATION. Simply because there was not then and still are not now any way of determining such numbers within the so-called "known Universe"! Estimates 200 billion or 2 trillion off are nothing but wild guesses. --Tyr

[cadet]

I figured the close minded would like to see this.

But mostly this is for Rev.

http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole

http://vimeo.com/39982578

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I figured the close minded would like to see this.

But mostly this is for Rev.

http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole

http://vimeo.com/39982578 Absolutely amazing. Clinically dead for that long and then can be routinely brought back is an astounding advancement. From that I can speculate that death is an absolute only when the human soul has left the body and not a moment before that time. --Tyr

[aboutime]

What then do you think is responsible for the doubling of C02 in the last 100 years?



pete. Instead of calling you 'pete'. I do believe it would be more respectable to you to call you AL. As in....http://icansayit.com/images/GORR.jpg

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/a2RZzyFTTXo?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MQeNgocaoDQ?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>




Richard Dawkins said: "…it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.*"...
"What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists....
It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make up a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene – a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something – unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us.*"

..........
"For 40 years, ever since Susumu Ohno introduced the term in 1972, they have been waving ‘junk DNA’ in the face of creationists, asking why their Creator God would have produced DNA with only 5% that had any function. Now they know, or are beginning to find out, that it wasn’t that it was without function, but simply that they knew too little about it to be aware of what it did. In fact this mirrors exactly the blunder they made 100 years ago or so, when they claimed over 100 human organs were vestigial: remnants of our evolutionary past that were no longer functional. They were wrong with vestigial organs 100 years ago, and they have been wrong for the past 40 years with junk DNA. Will they never learn?"

And here's something to consider,
the fact that scientist ASSUMED evolution is true and they EXPECT to find junk, that somethings are NOT going to be needed because evolution MEANS you have evidence of tranformation of purpose of parts over time. BUT honest "discovery" of the lack of useless parts and DNA is MORE evidence of a designer. Not of accidental change over time by environmental pressures.
the belief of evolution has slowed the progress of real science here. It closed the mind to what continually being revealed by research. that biology at every level appears designed and the parts of every organism have current functions and purpose.

[Noir]

I'd go so far as to say there are no scientific dogmas (dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.)

There are a few Mathematical Dogmas, but they are logically underpinned, and at the very least are as true as anything can ever said to be true. The rest is carved and woven by constant hypothesis, experimentation, hypothesis, experimentation, hypothesis, experimentation....

[revelarts]

I'd go so far as to say there are no scientific dogmas (dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.)

There are a few Mathematical Dogmas, but they are logically underpinned, and at the very least are as true as anything can ever said to be true. The rest is carved and woven by constant hypothesis, experimentation, hypothesis, experimentation, hypothesis, experimentation....



So, chemicals to microbes to man evolution is NOT 'incontrovertibly true', correct?
And is open to question, right?

[Noir]

So, chemicals to microbes to man evolution is NOT 'incontrovertibly true', correct? And is open to question, right?

Ofcourse its open to question. The theory of evolution can be challenged just as easily as the theory of gravity, or electromagnetism etc.

As Tim Minchin once quipped "They always say "But evolution is only a theory!&rdquo;, which is true, it is a theory, it&rsquo;s good that they say that, I think, it gives you hope, doesn&rsquo;t it? Hope that maybe they feel the same way about the theory of gravity&hellip; and they might just float the fuck away."

[revelarts]

Ofcourse its open to question. The theory of evolution can be challenged just as easily as the theory of gravity, or electromagnetism etc.

As Tim Minchin once quipped "They always say "But evolution is only a theory!”, which is true, it is a theory, it’s good that they say that, I think, it gives you hope, doesn’t it? Hope that maybe they feel the same way about the theory of gravity… and they might just float the fuck away."

Ok so with gravity we can test it and verify TODAY. We can do experiments and measure it repeat it TODAY. and showing something floating we could start to question the theory of gravity. but we can empirically see and measure gravity in full operation TODAY. even if the theory might need adjustment IF items began to float.
With evolution however
can you SHOW ME chemicals becoming alive experimentally? the answer is NO.
can you SHOW me a single celled Microbe transforming and gaining the molecular information to create a human, or even an slug. the answer is NO.
to compare the theory of Gravity and electromagnetism with evolution is doing disservice to them.
they are measurable experimentally verifiable repeatable.
where as evolution is speculative, psudo-historical and depend on a bunch of unverifiable stories and assumptions about events imagined in the deep past, and imagined creatures assumed to have lived, and ideas that often change to suit what ever data come ups while ignoring data that blows holes into it as big as Texas.
some scientific theories have much less going for them than others Noir . evolution is a piss poor theory and it doesn't get points just because other theories are sound. It has to stand on it's own legs, which it can not.

[Noir]

Ok so with gravity we can test it and verify TODAY. We can do experiments and measure it repeat it TODAY. and showing something floating we could start to question the theory of gravity. but we can empirically see and measure gravity in full operation TODAY. even if the theory might need adjustment IF items began to float. With evolution however can you SHOW ME chemicals becoming alive experimentally? the answer is NO. can you SHOW me a single celled Microbe transforming and gaining the molecular information to create a human, or even an slug. the answer is NO. to compare the theory of Gravity and electromagnetism with evolution is doing disservice to them. they are measurable experimentally verifiable repeatable. where as evolution is speculative, psudo-historical and depend on a bunch of unverifiable stories and assumptions about events imagined in the deep past, and imagined creatures assumed to have lived, and ideas that often change to suit what ever data come ups while ignoring data that blows holes into it as big as Texas. some scientific theories have much less going for them than others Noir . evolution is a piss poor theory and it doesn't get points just because other theories are sound. It has to stand on it's own legs, which it can not.

You can only test gravity after you make a huge wave of assumptions and speculations, and indeed these assumptions totally break down when it comes to quantum mechanics, and the physics of the singularity etc, and if you ask a scientist to explain magnetism and how a particle can create and permeate its own field, but only in certain circumstances, your answer will not be one of certainty at all.

That is not to say any of these are bad theories, they're the best we have, and getting better all the time, but saying something as daft as 'if items begin to float' is the real disservice.

[revelarts]

You can only test gravity after you make a huge wave of assumptions and speculations, and indeed these assumptions totally break down when it comes to quantum mechanics, and the physics of the singularity etc, and if you ask a scientist to explain magnetism and how a particle can create and permeate its own field, but only in certain circumstances, your answer will not be one of certainty at all.

That is not to say any of these are bad theories, they're the best we have, and getting better all the time, but saying something as daft as 'if items begin to float' is the real disservice.

floating was suggested in your quote, i just ran with it.

and it does apply in the abstract sense i meant it, because again a Law or a theory of science is subject to TESTING.
yes theories have assumptions but those are still being experimental tested.
While evolution is not base on testing so much as it's largely speculation based on fossils (which don't support it) and guess work on imagined relationships (that have no solid experimental base) and assumptions of unknown and unseen biological processes in supposed deep time. And other assumptions in biology and botany (many proven thread bare or false).
Saying "it's the best we have" is not an excuse why it shouldn't be rejected out of hand. Since there's plenty of evidence that falsifies the theory OUTRIGHT at several points.


if you want to compare evolution to other scientific theories, try one like the theory of spontaneous generation. Scientist used to believe it as well, but when experiments were done that disproved it, the scientific community slowly accepted the fact. Chemicals to man Evolution is similar to THAT defunct scientific Theory, not to the theories of gravity and the like.

abiogenesis is so far outside of scientific possibility that Fransis Crick proposed and Richard Dawkins allows for the idea of Extraterrestrials seeding the earth some time in the distant past as a solution to how life began here.
Dawkins added that, but abiogenesis of course happened ...sometime ... somewhere in space... somehow.

now that's DAFT, and a true disservice to the concept of a serious scientific theory.

[pete311]

if you want to compare evolution to other scientific theories, try one like the theory of spontaneous generation. Scientist used to believe it as well, but when experiments were done that disproved it, the scientific community slowly accepted the fact. Chemicals to man Evolution is similar to THAT defunct scientific Theory, not to the theories of gravity and the like.

Wonderful, that is how science works. Right now, there is not one experiment or observation that disproves evolution. Find one and you win the nobel prize. All you do is find gaps which we will eventually fill in (and do every year).

[Missileman]

if you want to compare evolution to other scientific theories, try one like the theory of spontaneous generation. Scientist used to believe it as well, but when experiments were done that disproved it, the scientific community slowly accepted the fact. Chemicals to man Evolution is similar to THAT defunct scientific Theory, not to the theories of gravity and the like.
.

There isn't even a slight similarity between spontaneous generation and evolution. However, there is a very strong resemblance between your post and this guy...

[revelarts]

Breaking the evolutionary Dogma just a bit.

the 3rd Way: Neo-Darwinism... inconsistent with empirical evidence

http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

Twenty highly-credentialed anti-creationists scientist have created the The Third Way forum. They explicitly acknowledge that neo-Darwinism and its natural selection cannot account for the diversity of life. These scientists include molecular biologists, etc., from institutions like MIT, Oxford, the University of Chicago, Tel Aviv University, University of Vienna, University of Bonn, UCLA, Princeton and others.




the 3rd way[/B]]...The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. (dogma?) There is a need for a more open “third way” of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations.

...The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations...

As Creationist have been pointing out for decades.

So here we go,
the public face of Scientific consensus on evolution is beginning to crack after decades of scholarly admissions that refute the basic premises of Evolution.

random mutations and natural selection CAN NOT produce the changes we see in the various living organism.

It is scientifically impossible for Random Mutation + Natural Selection to produce any life or evolve any new species, organs or NEW features. And more basically there's no known scientific mechanism for materialism to produce life even in 100 billion years.

It takes new INFORMATION to produce new features and there's NOTHING in nature that adds complex information to create an integrated eye, muscle, brain cell, etc. and there ARE NO transitional legs or eyes or livers in the fossil record. they all basically appear FULLY formed and functional.

the obvious conclusion is that SOME Intelligence loaded information into the living systems we see. There is NO other known source in the universe for complex information than Intelligence. period.However since atheist can't have.... that, BUT they are realizing that they HAVE TO begin admitting that evolution as explained to school children and PBS audiences everyday is impotent, They are LOOKING FOR a "3rd way" not the evolution that many here have tried to defend. Because that ain't gonna work. just as creationist have been saying for decades. But folks still don't want to embrace creation.

"There MUST BE SOME OTHER WAY! oh God help us.. uh oopps.. um.. forces of nature guide us to get a new idea we can pass off to the public so we can be 'intellectually fulfilled atheist' (Dawkins) still, amen."

evolution is dead.
most folks just don't know it yet, or just won't "believe" it.

Soo here's what they're tossing out as an options since they now KNOW that random mutation and Natural selection won't cover it.


....We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules.

Genomes merge, shrink and grow, acquire new DNA components, and modify their structures by well-documented cellular and biochemical processes....

well documented? but you can't come to a consensus on the process. why? Maybe because the evidence does not show how the information that the DNA and RNA use arose from those processes. but only explains what it does with the info it already has from ...some where.
If someone can show me mistaken please do point to the process asserted by ANYONE that explains where the information came from on a molecular level that would define the growth of the billions of different living parts and integrated body systems.




...The goal is to focus attention on the molecular and cellular processes which produce novelty without divine interventions or sheer luck. (HA!) Evolution is a complex subject, and projections and hypotheses will need to be based on documented empirical results...

Empirical results? in evolutionary science? you mean a good story is not good enough? So just SAYING that whales evolved withOUT solid evidence is NOT good enough? Just saying that birds came from dinosaurs and putting feathers on old ratty dinosaurs displays is not enough?
Empirical results you say? hmm. OK that does seem more scientific i guess.
But they still are ASSUMING Evolution Rather than following the evidence where it takes you.

in a murder case if your main evidence for one killer falls apart completely you don't just assume you STILL DO have the right killer but you were ONLY mistaken on the, method, weapon, time and motives so you PRESS on with the investigation. If your honest, you accept all the evidence and move in the direction it leads.
Ah, but that's Criminal science, this is EVOLUTIONARY "science" it's suppose to be circular i suppose.

Look, to still ASSUME that evolution is true somehow in the face of the fact that they already KNOW that it's proven empirically impossible is just denial. And not science at it's best. It's better than before by a bit, but they're not really "OPEN". They are just trying ti find away out of the box God has placed them in.

[revelarts]

All of the new approaches they assert still have the same hurdles to jump.

-the random unguided process, if it's guided it's guided by information which they have to account for.

-the problem of negative effects, one option promoted is virus transfers of dna parts, yet the virus bring death and illness to the creature and is again unguided so, FAIL.

-one option they toss around is a version of the old hopeful monster Idea. That is new creators being formed by popping outta nowhere. like a lizard laying a chicken egg. or a slug metamorphosing into another insect never to change back. do they have evidence of this? no. just "theory".

[Gunny]

All of the new approaches they assert still have the same hurdles to jump.

-the random unguided process, if it's guided it's guided by information which they have to account for.

-the problem of negative effects, one option promoted is virus transfers of dna parts, yet the virus bring death and illness to the creature and is again unguided so, FAIL.

-one option they toss around is a version of the old hopeful monster Idea. That is new creators being formed by popping outta nowhere. like a lizard laying a chicken egg. or a slug metamorphosing into another insect never to change back. do they have evidence of this? no. just "theory".

Here's an idea for you to toss around. I've watched these science vs God threads for years. And you'll have to excuse me if this has been covered, I got tired of reading once the insults started.

Science as a set of physical laws and principles is what it is. There's no denying that. Man's ability to explain the world in which Man lives. I'm fine n dandy with THAT.

But you can't explain God. Scientific THEORY tries to explain Him away, but what's the difference between scientific theory and creationism? Most scientific theory is crap. Guesswork.

On the the other hand, every bit of life is perfect. The only thing that intervenes in that is Man. But it "just happened"? Out of the entire universe, we just happened to be in the right place at the right time? Some primordial ooze turned into us. That would be the entire universe that is infinite yet expanding, right?

We're no accident and nothing scientific theory has to say is going to explain THAT fact away.

[revelarts]

Here's an idea for you to toss around. I've watched these science vs God threads for years. And you'll have to excuse me if this has been covered, I got tired of reading once the insults started.

Science as a set of physical laws and principles is what it is. There's no denying that. Man's ability to explain the world in which Man lives. I'm fine n dandy with THAT.

But you can't explain God. Scientific THEORY tries to explain Him away, but what's the difference between scientific theory and creationism? Most scientific theory is crap. Guesswork.

On the the other hand, every bit of life is perfect. The only thing that intervenes in that is Man. But it "just happened"? Out of the entire universe, we just happened to be in the right place at the right time? Some primordial ooze turned into us. That would be the entire universe that is infinite yet expanding, right?

We're no accident and nothing scientific theory has to say is going to explain THAT fact away.

Gunny, I'm not sure I see exactly where you're coming from.
But I think i'd agree with a lot that .

[tailfins]

Gunny, I'm not sure I see exactly where you're coming from.
But I think i'd agree with a lot that .

Welcome back, Rev.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6o0Cah5kQU

[revelarts]

University Silences Scientist After Dinosaur Discovery

because science is NOT dogma?

Quote:


<tbody>


07/23/2014

​Los Angeles, CA—A scientist was terminated from his job at a California State University after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil, and then publishing his findings. Pacific Justice Institute filed suit, yesterday, with the Los Angeles County Superior Court, against the board of trustees of CSU, Northridge, citing discrimination for perceived religious views.

"Terminating an employee because of their religious views is completely inappropriate and illegal," commented Brad Dacus, President of PJI. "But doing so in an attempt to silence scientific speech at a public university is even more alarming. This should be a wakeup call and warning to the entire world of academia," he continued.
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

Armitage, a published scientist of over 30 years, was subsequently let go after CSUN abruptly claimed his appointment at the university of 38 months had been temporary, and claimed a lack of funding for his position. This was news to him, and contradicted prior statements and documents from the university.

Michael Peffer, staff attorney with PJI's southern California office said, "It has become apparent that 'diversity' and 'intellectual curiosity,' so often touted as hallmarks of a university education, do not apply to those with a religious point of view. This suit was filed, in part, to vindicate those ideals."
- See more at: University Silences Scientist After Dinosaur Discovery - Pacific Justice Institute - Defending Faith, Family, and Other Civil Liberties (http://www.pacificjustice.org/press-releases/university-silences-scientist-after-dinosaur-discovery#sthash.KD3POTIj.dpuf)


</tbody>

Quote:

<tbody>
foxnews
Scientist claims California university fired him over creationist beliefs
A California university says it is investigating religious discrimination allegations made by a prominent scientist and former employee who claims he was fired for his creationist beliefs.

Mark Armitage, a scientist and evangelical Christian, claims he was fired from his job as a lab technician at California State University at Northridge because he published an academic paper which appeared to support his creationist views, according to a lawsuit filed last week.

Armitage, who does not believe in evolution, was lauded by his colleagues and the science community after he discovered in 2012 the largest triceratops horn ever recovered from the world-famous Hell Creek Formation in Glendive, Mont.

Upon further examination of the fossils under a high-powered microscope, Armitage made a stunning find -- soft tissue inside the triceratops horn with bone cells, or osteocytes, that looked alive.

Scientists who study dinosaurs have long believed that triceratops existed some 68 million years ago and became extinct about 65 million years ago.

Armitage's finding, however, challenged that assertion. He argued the triceratops must be much younger or else those cells would have "decayed into nothingness," according to the July 22 lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Armitage, a long-time microscope scientist who has some 30 published papers to his name, believes the bones are no more than 4,000 years old -- a hypothesis that supports his view that such dinosaurs roamed the Earth relatively recently and that the planet is young.

On Feb. 12, 2013, a science journal published Armitage's triceratops soft tissue findings. Days later, Armitage was fired from his position.

According to Armitage's attorneys, the university claimed his 38-month employment had been "temporary" and that there was a lack of funding for his position. Armitage, however, claims he was called "permanent part-time" and allowed the full benefits package offered by the university.

The lawsuit alleges that in the weeks leading up to his termination, Armitage's boss, Ernest Kwok, "stormed into" his lab and shouted, "'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!!"

The complaint also claims that Armitage's creationist view was known to members of the university's biology department prior to his employment.

When Armitage applied and interviewed for the position, he "informed the panel of CSUN personnel who interviewed him" that he "had published materials supportive of creationism," according to the complaint.

"Because of plaintiff's exceptional qualifications, these publications did not disqualify him from the position," the lawsuit says.

Lawyers with the Pacific Justice Institute, who represent Armitage, claim Kwok was not among those who hired his client and came on as his new supervisor when Armitage's old boss retired in June 2012.

Neither Armitage nor Kwok were able to speak about the matter due to pending litigation.

Jeff Noblitt, a university spokesman, told FoxNews.com that the school is in the process of investigating all allegations within the complaint.

Though Noblitt would not comment on the specifics of the case, he said the university, "strictly forbids discrimination on the basis of religion and we do not base employment-related decisions on an employee's religious beliefs."

"We have a long history of welcoming a diversity of perspectives and championing free thought and discovery within our academic environment," he said.

Noblitt noted that Armitage served as an instructional support technician and was considered a "temporary employee." He declined to provide a reason for Armitage's termination.

The discovery of soft tissue cells within dinosaur remains is controversial. When soft tissue was found in 2005 on the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex -- believed to be 68 million years old -- researchers last November provided a physical explanation for it: iron within the dinosaur's body had preserved the tissue from decay.

FoxNews.com's Cristina Corbin contributed to this report.

Scientist claims California university fired him over creationist beliefs | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/30/scientist-claims-california-university-fired-him-over-creationist-beliefs/)

</tbody>

audio interview

http://kgov.com/files/audio/bel/2014...905-BEL178.mp3 (http://kgov.com/files/audio/bel/2014/20140905-BEL178.mp3)

[revelarts]

I started this thread with this guy talking about being banned from the the ted site.
by scientist who didn't like him questioning scientific dogmas.

here's the actual talk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

[pete311]

Science as a set of physical laws and principles is what it is. There's no denying that.
yup ok fine



Man's ability to explain the world in which Man lives. I'm fine n dandy with THAT.
yup fine ok



But you can't explain God.
yup fine ok


Scientific THEORY tries to explain Him away
nah, we're trying to, you know, cure cancer and stuff...



but what's the difference between scientific theory and creationism?

The scientific model. Creationism is just fantasy dream making. You have no system other than to follow an old dusty book.



Most scientific theory is crap. Guesswork.

As you use a computer and the internet. Yeah, all that stuff is guesswork. You have no appreciation for what science has done for you.



On the the other hand, every bit of life is perfect. The only thing that intervenes in that is Man.

This is just a personal opinion and philosophy.



But it "just happened"? Out of the entire universe, we just happened to be in the right place at the right time? Some primordial ooze turned into us. That would be the entire universe that is infinite yet expanding, right?

Your ignorance in a subject does not falsify it.



We're no accident and nothing scientific theory has to say is going to explain THAT fact away.
Again, just your opinion. Jump off your soapbox and let's get back to curing cancer. Because when you get cancer, you will be heading to a scientific cancer treatment center, not some shaman in the woods talking about how life is perfect, rubbing chicken grease on your head and chanting with his eyes turned back.

[pete311]

University Silences Scientist After Dinosaur Discovery

because science is NOT dogma?



You just believe anything and anyone that supports your beliefs. Looking at the article the information is all from his lawsuit and are his personal claims. It appears he's just a jaded employee after being fired for who knows what.

Science is not dogmatic. It changes and builds on itself. What a silly assertion. Are you saying that science has not changed and improved over the past 100 years?

[revelarts]

You just believe anything and anyone that supports your beliefs. Looking at the article the information is all from his lawsuit and are his personal claims. It appears he's just a jaded employee after being fired for who knows what. Do you disbelieve anyone who doesn't follow the party line and ASSUME they are lying and jaded?



Science is not dogmatic. It changes and builds on itself. What a silly assertion. Are you saying that science has not changed and improved over the past 100 years?
What I (and many scientist) are saying there are certain NO GO, forbidden areas, where the scientific establishment actively squashes, suppresses and fights honest dissent.

[pete311]

honest dissent

That it is not. The dissent is marginalized for good reason just like no one pays attention to holocaust deniers. Breakthroughs are made all the time. Discoveries unveiled all the time. Science is progressing at an incredible rate. Nothing is holding back real science which follows the scientific method and is peer reviewed.

[revelarts]

that it is not. The dissent is marginalized for good reason just like no one pays attention to holocaust deniers. Breakthroughs are made all the time. Discoveries unveiled all the time. Science is progressing at an incredible rate. Nothing is holding back real science which follows the scientific method and is peer reviewed.

lol!

[revelarts]

...I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called
consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that
ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first
refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your
wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the
business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be
right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In
science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in
history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it
isn’t consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of.
Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six
died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were
infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver
Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence.
The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually
eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew,
ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever
until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five
years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the
world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of
women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people,
mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was
infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a
brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that
diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger
demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was
not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and
other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules
containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody
contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a
social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that
social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a
twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather
snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The
consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by
the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were
spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild
sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur
and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone
replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is
invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of
scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away.
It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.....

Michael Crichton
From his lecture "aliens cause global warming"


Another Quote from that lecture
"...Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to
support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of
those scientists who won’t get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as
outsiders and “skeptics” in quotation marks—suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry
flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nut-cases. In short order, debate ends, even
though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.

When did “skeptic” become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?..."

............

Aliens Cause Global Warming
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...ichton2003.pdf (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf)

[revelarts]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395/1977386_451596984973485_480154378311556173_n.jpg?o h=69d07286c8fa83166ab65df629510f82&oe=551888DA&__gda__=1426948127_e50aec8f3e94065ab4f6745b23a0cc3 8

[pete311]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395/1977386_451596984973485_480154378311556173_n.jpg?o h=69d07286c8fa83166ab65df629510f82&oe=551888DA&__gda__=1426948127_e50aec8f3e94065ab4f6745b23a0cc3 8

exactly why no one outside this drivel infested rat hole of a community will ever take you seriously. science is a methodology, not an ideology. end of story.

[NightTrain]

I see you're still the sad little hate-filled scumbag you always were, Petey.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That it is not. The dissent is marginalized for good reason just like no one pays attention to holocaust deniers. Breakthroughs are made all the time. Discoveries unveiled all the time. Science is progressing at an incredible rate. Nothing is holding back real science which follows the scientific method and is peer reviewed.


The dissent is marginalized for good reason-- yes always. :rolleyes:

You mean like the way the Obama slavish media marginalizes things. Science as a body is still composed of human beings, not robots or angels--SO- the old adage follow where the power, money and vested interests lead for the truth of the matter still reigns.

And--" peer reviewed" you say!! Well, golly that magic set of words seals the deal, right?:laugh:
"peer reviewed" is not a magic bullet that shows either perfection, accuracy and/or a lack of bias.. Give me a break. You talk as if we are all 6 year old kids..

Remember , the "Big bang" theory was accepted as gospel for over 60/70 years, now its cast aside with a casual flippant o'well, that was wrong , lets just move on.
Trust us , we are scientists and we peer review this shit.- :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: --Tyr

[revelarts]

exactly why no one outside this drivel infested rat hole of a community will ever take you seriously. science is a methodology, not an ideology. end of story.

you haven't been reading the quotes from scientist, or looking at the videos.

Science is suppose to be methodology, but it takes on all the aspects of an ideology in many ways.

i began this thread and have referred to several times Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, international science speaker and cell biologist from Cambridge university as well as other scientist like the Micheal Crichton, the Science philosopher Carl Popper and others. I've piled on other issues broght up by intelengent design and creation scientist observations that lay bare specific false beliefs and overall positions of science holds to not because of the data but because of various paradigms.

the idea that science is dogma is not some idea i just came up with, it's been an issues for some time an it's now being well discussed among the scientific community because of Dr, Sheldrake.

you should take it seriously as well.

[revelarts]

Here's an except from an article written by Dr. Sheldrake .
the article is entitled The 10 dogmas of modern science.


.... In this book, I argue that science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The sciences would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun.
The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details still need working out but, in principle, the fundamental questions are settled....

The scientific creed

Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.


Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.
All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.
The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).
The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever.
Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.
Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.
Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Together, these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of materialism, whose central assumption is that everything is essentially material or physical, even minds. This belief-system became dominant within science in the late nineteenth century, and is now taken for granted. Many scientists are unaware that materialism is an assumption: they simply think of it as science, or the
scientific view of reality, or the scientific worldview. They are not actually taught about it, or given a chance to discuss it. They absorb it by a kind of intellectual osmosis.....

that's his list.

Here's a quote from Michael Crichton
From his lecture "aliens cause global warming"
"...Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won’t get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and “skeptics” in quotation marks—suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nut-cases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done. When did “skeptic” become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?..."

Here are quotes from Karl Popper
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."

'Normal' science, in Kuhn's sense, exists. It is the activity of the non-revolutionary, or more precisely, the not-too-critical professional: of the science student who accepts the ruling dogma of the day... in my view the 'normal' scientist, as Kuhn describes him, is a person one ought to be sorry for... He has been taught in a dogmatic spirit: he is a victim of indoctrination... I can only say that I see a very great danger in it and in the possibility of its becoming normal... a danger to science and, indeed, to our civilization. And this shows why I regard Kuhn's emphasis on the existence of this kind of science as so important.
'Normal Science and its Dangers', in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (1970), 52-3.

My thesis is that what we call 'science' is differentiated from the older myths not by being something distinct from a myth, but by being accompanied by a second-order tradition—that of critically discussing the myth. … In a certain sense, science is myth-making just as religion is.
Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge (2002), 170-171.

.....................
So people do take the concept VERY seriously outside of this board Pete?

[revelarts]

Consensus positions clearly may only represent the group opinion at one instant in time, and may not represent the true range of uncertainty about the issue at hand.... This is disturbing because consensus is often used in the geosciences.
— Andrew Curtis, "The Science of Subjectivity," Geology (40:1), Jan. 2012

[revelarts]

An educator defends science while an astrophysicist undermines it.
Two articles on the Conversation website, put together, ask us to promote science because it can’t prove anything. That’s an odd combination. Let’s take a look.
On The Conversation article #1 (4/15/15), Rod Lamberts of the Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science presents a typical science-as-progress, science-as-truth argument for why people should value science and support it through government largesse. ...

...A more reasoned presentation of science is in The Conversation (http://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570) article #2, by astrophysicist Geraint Lewis. You can tell where he’s going by his headline, “Where is the proof in science? There is none.” He ends with a quote from Nobel physicist Richard Feynman, “I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.” Lewis shows himself keenly aware of the principle that scientific views are tentative at best.So, science is like an ongoing courtroom drama, with a continual stream of evidence being presented to the jury. But there is no single suspect and new suspects regularly wheeled in. In light of the growing evidence, the jury is constantly updating its view of who is responsible for the data.
But no verdict of absolute guilt or innocence is ever returned, as evidence is continually gathered and more suspects are paraded in front of the court. All the jury can do is decide that one suspect is more guilty than another.....

http://crev.info/2015/04/scientific-proof/

great article and site

[revelarts]

FYI

the spiral arms of galaxies.
Based on gravity and the billions of years ago when these galaxies supposedly formed there should be no spiral arms left.
In only millions of years the spiral arms would have wound up like clock springs and we'd only see disk like masses of stars.
but there they are.

no early galaxies seen.
recently the Hubble telescope looked at a tiny patch of "black" to see as far as possible away and as far back in time as possible.
they expected to find "young" galaxies. but what they found where galaxies that looked "mature". The same as all of the other galaxies we know of. including our own.
So the assumption/prediction was wrong. The observation does not bare out the big bang timeline.


Star formation is unexplained by the big bang and gravity theory of the cosmos.
Gas does not coalesce in space to form stars, as the story we are told goes.
Temperature and pressure would push the gas particles away from each other before gravity could form stars.
population 3 stars -original big bang H He stars- have not been discovered or seen in space.
Stars forming from stars that are already here has more evidence. but the origin of stars in the 1st place has no evidenced based or workable theory via the big bang or accepted physics.

[revelarts]

Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink
"Data or Dogma?"



http://youtu.be/GujLcfdovE8Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following is her verbal remarks as delivered to last week's US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on "Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate."

Quote:

<tbody>
Transcript via JudithCurry.com:

I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.

Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.

I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.

I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.

What have I concluded from this assessment?

Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.

The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.

Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?

Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.

In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity – without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.

I would like to thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate science.

This concludes my testimony.

</tbody>

[revelarts]

Article about bias in Cosmological research, with suggestions on fixing it.


Cosmological concerns

The picture of the cosmos we now have is one that is dominated by two components, dark matter and dark energy (https://theconversation.com/the-search-for-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-just-got-interesting-46422). These account for 95% of the energy content of the universe, yet we do not know what they are. This is an issue for cosmologists and indeed is rightly lauded as one of the most important problems in physics – explanations for the nature of dark energy range from proposals to scrap Einstein’s theory of relativity, the addition of a new fundamental field (http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3406) of nature, or even that we may be seeing the effects of neighbouring parallel universes (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140318-multiverse-inflation-big-bang-science-space/).

But the dark energy problem is not the one that threatens to undermine cosmological experiments. In cognitive science, confirmation bias is the effect where people tend to unconsciously interpret information in a manner that leads to a selection of data that confirms their current beliefs. For cosmologists, this means the unconscious (or conscious) tuning of results such that the final cosmological interpretation tends to confirm what they already believe. This is particularly pernicious in cosmology because unlike laboratory-based experiments we cannot rerun our experiment many times to investigate statistical anomalies – we only have one universe.


A study (http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3108) that surveyed all the published cosmological literature between the years 1996 and 2008 showed that the statistics of the results were too good to be true. In fact, the statistical spread of the results was not consistent with what would be expected mathematically, which means cosmologists were in agreement with each other – but to a worrying degree. This meant that either results were being tuned somehow to reflect the status-quo, or that there may be some selection effect where only those papers that agreed with the status-quo were being accepted by journals.

Unfortunately the problem is only going to get more difficult to avoid as experiments get better. Ask most cosmologists what they think dark energy will be, and you will grudgingly receive the answer that it is probably a vacuum energy. Ask most cosmologists if they think Einstein’s theory is correct on cosmic scales, and you will grudgingly receive the answer that yes, it probably is correct. If these assertions turn out to be true, how can we convince the wider scientific community, and humanity, that any cosmological finding is not just the result of getting the answer we expected to get?...
....

https://theconversation.com/cosmology-is-in-crisis-but-not-for-the-reason-you-may-think-52349

[Gunny]

You just believe anything and anyone that supports your beliefs. Looking at the article the information is all from his lawsuit and are his personal claims. It appears he's just a jaded employee after being fired for who knows what.

Science is not dogmatic. It changes and builds on itself. What a silly assertion. Are you saying that science has not changed and improved over the past 100 years?

Science changes aa the wind blows. I think I already pointed this out. Science is MAN's definition of man and subject to out physical laws. Scientific theory is just bullshit.

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsFKJ9sI0dM

[pete311]

Scientific theory is just bullshit.

Yet our world is filled with it's fruits. You're like a man claiming to never have seen an orange, while peeling one! Hello!

[pete311]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsFKJ9sI0dM

Definitely appears to be a credible source. Your instincts are spot on!

[revelarts]

Pretty good "rough Guide"


http://orig12.deviantart.net/b3ee/f/2014/337/e/8/spotting_bad_science_by_paradigm_shifting-d88k02v.jpg
SaveSave

[revelarts]

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” is how the great Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman defined science in his article “What is Science?” Feynman emphasized this definition by repeating it in a stand-alone sentence in extra large typeface in his article. (Feynman’s essay is available online, but behind a subscription wall: The Physics Teacher (1969) volume 7, starting page 313.)
Immediately after his definition of science, Feynman wrote: “When someone says, ‘Science teaches such and such,’ he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, ‘Science has shown such and such,’ you should ask, ‘How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?’ It should not be ‘science has shown.’ And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.”

And I say, Amen. Notice that “you” is the average person. You have the right to hear the evidence, and you have the right to judge whether the evidence supports the conclusion. We now use the phrase “scientific consensus,” or “peer review," rather than “science has shown.” By whatever name, the idea is balderdash. Feynman was absolutely correct.

When the attorney general of Virginia sued to force Michael Mann of "hockey stick" fame to provide the raw data he used, and the complete computer program used to analyze the data, so that “you” could decide, the Faculty Senate of the University of Virginia (where Mann was a professor at the time he defended the hockey stick) declared this request -- Feynman’s request -- to be an outrage. You peons, the Faculty Senate decreed, must simply accept the conclusions of any “scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer review standards.” Feynman’s -- and the attorney general’s and my own and other scientists’ -- request for the raw data, so we can “judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at,” would, according to the Faculty Senate, “send a chilling message to scientists … and indeed scholars in any discipline.”



Great piece speaking to the bullshit lies our "leaders" tell us about "science".


https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-differe...inglepage=true (https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-difference-between-true-science-and-cargo-cult-science/?singlepage=true)

for another thread

[GravyBoat]

I laugh whenever someone says "banned TED Talks". There are no banned TED Talks. There are TED Talks that don't make it on their official website because they stink. Like the one by Sarah Silverman, who has nothing to say anyway, why the hell she was even given the chance.

[revelarts]

I laugh whenever someone says "banned TED Talks". There are no banned TED Talks. There are TED Talks that don't make it on their official website because they stink. Like the one by Sarah Silverman, who has nothing to say anyway, why the hell she was even given the chance.

Dr. Sheldrake ain't Sarah Silverman.
Again we have a case where instead of looking at the evidence for this particular case, assumptions are made about the claim and it's dismissed out of hand.
take a look at the 1st post and the events described to see if it was "banned".
And then look at the content of the talk to see if it "stinks".
But please don't make a knee jerk assessment/pronouncement based on Sarah Silverman and think anyone should take your comment seriously.

[GravyBoat]

Here's an explanation as to why Sheldrake's talk was removed. Ironically, he was found to use a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions and dogmas himself in his TED Talk:

http://blog.ted.com/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/

The problem isn't Sheldrake, the problem isn't even with TED, the problem is with people who think TED owes them something. Speech is the reliance upon rhetoric over truth. The goal of TED is obviously some sort of agenda, not open honest discussion.

TED Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_(conference)

[revelarts]

Washington Post
Many scientific studies can’t be replicated. That’s a problem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/27/trouble-in-science-massive-effort-to-reproduce-100-experimental-results-succeeds-only-36-times/

Maverick researchers have long argued that much of what gets published in elite scientific journals is fundamentally squishy — that the results tell a great story but can’t be reproduced when the experiments are run a second time.
[No, science’s reproducibility problem is not limited to psychology (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/28/no-sciences-reproducibility-problem-is-not-limited-to-psychology/)]
Now a volunteer army of fact-checkers has published a new report that affirms that the skepticism was warranted. Over the course of four years, 270 researchers attempted to reproduce the results of 100 experiments that had been published in three prestigious psychology journals.
It was awfully hard. They ultimately concluded that they’d succeeded just 39 times.
The failure rate surprised even the leaders of the project, who had guessed that perhaps half the results wouldn’t be reproduced.


the economist
Problems with scientific research
How science goes wrong
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong



A SIMPLE idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”. Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better.

But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity.

Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.

What a load of rubbish
Even when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risk—and much of it is too far from the market to do so—it squanders money and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds. The opportunity costs of stymied progress are hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.
...


scientific America
Psychology's Ongoing Credibility Crisis
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/psychology-s-ongoing-credibility-crisis/


It’s a tough time to be a young psychologist. This thought keeps occurring to me as we search for a new psychology professor at my school, Stevens Institute of Technology. When I meet candidates, I have to ask about their field’s replication—and credibility—crisis.

I feel as though I’m pressing them on some sordid personal matter, like whether alcoholism runs in their families, but the topic is unavoidable. Last summer, a group called the “Open Science Collaboration” reported in Science that it had replicated fewer than half of 100 studies published in major psychology journals.

The New York Times declared in a front-page story that the report “confirmed the worst fears of scientists who have long worried that [psychology] needed a strong correction. The vetted studies were considered part of the core knowledge by which scientists understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory. Therapists and educators rely on such findings to help guide decisions, and the fact that so many of the studies were called into question could sow doubt in the scientific underpinnings of their work.”

The crisis keeps generating headlines. On Friday, a group of four prominent psychologists led by Daniel Gilbert of Harvard claimed in Science that last year’s Open Collaboration study was statistically flawed and did not prove its claim that “the reproducibility of psychological science is low.” “Indeed,” Gilbert and his co-authors state, “the data are consistent with the opposite conclusion, namely, that the reproducibility of psychological science is quite high.”

Nature magazine
http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

Phys.org
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-science-crisis.html

[revelarts]

Is There a Reproducibility Crisis in Science?By Nature Video (http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/nature-video/) on May 28, 2016
http://www.scientificamerican.com/video/is-there-a-reproducibility-crisis-in-science/
Nature asked 1,576 scientists for their thoughts on reproducibility. Most agree that there's a 'crisis' and over 70% said they'd tried and failed to reproduce another group's experiments.
This video was reproduced with permission and was first published on May 25, 2016. It is a Nature Video production.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7K3s_vi_1Y

[revelarts]

Question to Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrGRP2mu0GA
the questions interesting alone.

“I am a 24-year-old graduate student in medicinal chemistry/chemical biology. I had been admitted to various different schools and had multiple offers from individual labs upon finishing my undergrad degree. I eventually made the best decision I could have with the information that had been made available at the time and I picked a specific medicinal chemistry/chemical biology lab that seemed to have copious amounts of both money and publications. The reason I chose this lab was that it seemed to be the best place to propel my career forward despite it being 5,000km away from my home, family, and friends.“

“As I was gearing up for the long and grueling five years that were to come, I saw the lab I had chosen for what it really was. The reason this particular lab had so much money and fame was because he was forging his results. And presented these erroneous results to both private and public funding organizations in an attempt to gather more money for himself. Worse still, when graduate students, post docs, or lab techs brought the non-consistent data to his attention, he simply would brush them off and tell them to hide the information.”

“It even got so bad that the professor fired a couple of post-docs and graduate students because he thought they weren't going along with his manipulated data. This professor is more concerned in being the rock-star of the university and the celebrity of the city than he is in being an honest scientist in the pursuit of truth. Sadly, I think this attitude is pervasive in the minds of many of my colleagues. I think this is so because our society has a tendency to view scientists as the new "priests" and science as the new ‘God,’ as you have so precisely pointed out.”

“In short, I have two questions that I was hoping you'd help me answer. Firstly, how can I as an individual up-and-coming scientist help prevent the forging and manipulation of data from happening within the scientific community (particularly in my field: medicinal chemistry/chemical biology). And secondly, how can I play a part in "de-priestifying" scientists and help bring this careerism, which can often end up with a lot of innocent people suffering, to a halt?”

[revelarts]

Nature magazine:

"Let’s make peer review scientific"
http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517


Thirty years on from the first congress on peer review, Drummond Rennie reflects on the improvements brought about by research into the process — and calls for more.
Peer review is touted as a demonstration of the self-critical nature of science. But it is a human system. Everybody involved brings prejudices, misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge, so no one should be surprised that peer review is often biased and inefficient. It is occasionally corrupt, sometimes a charade, an open temptation to plagiarists. Even with the best of intentions, how and whether peer review identifies high-quality science is unknown. It is, in short, unscientific....
...To announce that first Peer Review Congress, I wrote: “There are scarcely any bars to eventual publication. There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print”10.

Unfortunately, that statement is still true today, and I'm not just talking about predatory journals. That said, I am confident that the Peer Review Congress scheduled for 2017 will be asking more incisive, actionable questions than ever before.


How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop
http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517


Humans are remarkably good at self-deception. But growing concern about reproducibility is driving many researchers to seek ways to fight their own worst instincts.
.....
Failure to understand our own biases has helped to create a crisis of confidence about the reproducibility of published results, says statistician John Ioannidis, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. The issue goes well beyond cases of fraud. Earlier this year, a large project that attempted to replicate 100 psychology studies managed to reproduce only slightly more than one-third2. In 2012, researchers at biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, reported that they could replicate only 6 out of 53 landmark studies in oncology and haematology3. And in 2009, Ioannidis and his colleagues described how they had been able to fully reproduce only 2 out of 18 microarray-based gene-expression studies4.

Although it is impossible to document how often researchers fool themselves in data analysis, says Ioannidis, findings of irreproducibility beg for an explanation. The study of 100 psychology papers is a case in point: if one assumes that the vast majority of the original researchers were honest and diligent, then a large proportion of the problems can be explained only by unconscious biases. “This is a great time for research on research,” he says. “The massive growth of science allows for a massive number of results, and a massive number of errors and biases to study. So there's good reason to hope we can find better ways to deal with these problems.”

“When crises like this issue of reproducibility come along, it's a good opportunity to advance our scientific tools,” says Robert MacCoun, a social scientist at Stanford. That has happened before, when scientists in the mid-twentieth century realized that experimenters and subjects often unconsciously changed their behaviour to match expectations. From that insight, the double-blind standard was born.

“People forget that when we talk about the scientific method, we don't mean a finished product,” says Saul Perlmutter, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley. “Science is an ongoing race between our inventing ways to fool ourselves, and our inventing ways to avoid fooling ourselves.” So researchers are trying a variety of creative ways to debias data analysis — strategies that involve collaborating with academic rivals, getting papers accepted before the study has even been started and working with strategically faked data.

The problem
Although the human brain and its cognitive biases have been the same for as long as we have been doing science, some important things have changed, says psychologist Brian Nosek, executive director of the non-profit Center for Open Science in Charlottesville, Virginia, which works to increase the transparency and reproducibility of scientific research. Today's academic environment is more competitive than ever. There is an emphasis on piling up publications with statistically significant results — that is, with data relationships in which a commonly used measure of statistical certainty, the p-value, is 0.05 or less. “As a researcher, I'm not trying to produce misleading results,” says Nosek. “But I do have a stake in the outcome.” And that gives the mind excellent motivation to find what it is primed to find......

[revelarts]

Quotes of Philosophers of Science and Scientist about the work of science.


Thoms Kuhn
July 18, 1922 – June 17, 1996, was an American physicist, historian and philosopher of science

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-we-see-the-world-in-terms-of-our-theories-thomas-kuhn-109-36-78.jpg

The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not, however, just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly. Unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can emerge only to the extent that his anticipations about nature and his instruments prove wrong... There is no other effective way in which discoveries might be generated.

.........

Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data.

......

Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend most all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Normal science, often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments. As a puzzle-solving activity, normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.

......

Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition.

......

The transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all.

.......

Later scientific theories are better than earlier ones for solving puzzles in the often quite different environments to which they are applied. That is not a relativist's position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific progress.

......

In science novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation.

......




Karl Popper
was an Austrian-British philosopher and professor.He is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century.

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-game-of-science-is-in-principle-without-end-he-who-decides-one-day-that-scientific-karl-popper-68-73-93.jpg

In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable;
and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.

......

[revelarts]

Imre Lakatos
November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974
was a Hungarian philosopher of mathematics and science




http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-no-experimental-result-can-ever-kill-a-theory-any-theory-can-be-saved-from-counterinstances-imre-lakatos-57-34-02.jpg


think about that for a minute.

this is exactly what evolutionary theory and the big bang theory does.
the view called "neo-darwianism", (the accepted version of evolution at this point) is a demonstration of this.
Since "darwinism" as originally presented has been shown ... and accepted.... as being severely flawed.
adjunct "auxiliary hypothesis" and various reinterpretations of term have come in. but the "counter instances" continue to pile up as they do MORE reinterpretation goes on to try and maintain that the OVERALL theory is true.

rather than allowing the scientifically ascertained "counter instances" to falsify
the whole theory. The research shows the overall theory is flawed and not capable of producing the effects it claims to produce.

Similarly with the big bang, there are more and more nearly Ad Hoc "auxiliary hypothesis" added to save it as more data comes in that does not fit the predictions.

there is of course room for editing theories as new data brings more clarity but as some point it goes beyond clarification, it becomes falsification.

In a murder case if the 1st bits of evidence point to one suspect and some of the rest does as well. But some is a bit outside of it, well, people can live with it . But if more and more evidence begins to come in that shows that it was practically impossible for the original suspect to to commit the crime then at some point you have to say, 'He didn't do it'. Rather than continuing with unswerving commitment to make up new ways that he could have.

A one armed man paralyzed from the waist down wheelchair bound probably didn't use elaborate pulleys to climb up the side of 4 story building. Crawl down 2 flights of stairs, Inject himself with special hormones that gave him temporary super strength and lift the 350 pd sumo wrestle victim over his head and throw him out of the window across the street though a brick wall. then descend the wall back to his wheelchair at ground floor.

It's fine that when investigators 1st came on the scene he was only one in the area of the murder, and he'd hated Sumos.
so he was thought a viable suspect.
The rest of the evidence doesn't jibe.
the evidence when rationally examined shows that he could NOT do it.
elaborate speculations don't make it true.

[revelarts]

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-it-is-not-that-we-propose-a-theory-and-nature-may-shout-no-rather-we-propose-a-maze-imre-lakatos-57-33-99.jpg

[revelarts]

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-blind-commitment-to-a-theory-is-not-an-intellectual-virtue-it-is-an-intellectual-crime-imre-lakatos-72-74-14.jpg

[revelarts]

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-evolution-is-not-a-fact-evolution-doesn-t-even-qualify-as-a-theory-or-as-a-hypothesis-karl-popper-57-79-08.jpg

[Perianne]

Those guys must be smart. They are all nerds. :)

[revelarts]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/26/00/3c/26003c7a2d3f23bbc61ce5155d84f258.jpg

[fj1200]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/26/00/3c/26003c7a2d3f23bbc61ce5155d84f258.jpg


Those do not just pertain to science. Any POV should be subject to the same tests.

[revelarts]

"Science" of an Archeological theory changes again.

For decades, the standard explanation of how we went from our prehistoric society to our modern one was with the development of agriculture. Once we started figuring out how to farm, we no longer needed to move with migrating herds of animals. We could build permanent homes and villages and we could turn our attention to things like writing and culture.
Discoveries of stone tools and animal bones at Gobekli Tepe suggest that we have that all completely backwards.
At the heart of Gobekli Tepe are a series of carved stone megaliths dated to around 11,000 years ago. The stones were carved and installed while the civilization was still relying on its hunting and gathering ways. It was only about 500 years later that they established a nearby village where they domesticated sheep, pigs, and cattle and started to farm the world’s oldest strains of wheat.
The need to build a massive complex, carve sacred images into stone, and to create a sociological center forced mankind to develop farming and herding as a way to feed the builders and stoneworkers. Farming provided the fuel (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/?all&no-ist) necessary to allow our prehistoric ancestors to make their vision a reality.



This still assumes a fair amount. It's fine to debate it, but when we've been told for decades now that "civilization rose BECAUSE..." and ONLY NOW can we acceptable challenge that ASSERTION then there's a problem.

If they just say that it seems that this or that MIGHT be the case GREAT. But to not allow the discussion and questions to allowed on the table because it's the mainstream MADE UP STORY of what MIGHT have happened at the moment is not good science. it's dogma.


the same goes even MORESO for practically ALL evolutionary explanations.
they are MADE UP to fit the current theory.
When scientist say, "...XYZ developed THIS or THAT trait because..." it's always a guess... at best and thin inference... not something based on evidence, or scientific observation or experiment. But just based assumed relationships and creating or picking the best of all thinly plausible options.