The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!

reply to post by romanmel


I try to. Granted, they're few and far between. I'd like to point out that Sweden, Norway, and Finland are the least religious nations on the planet...and they are three of the best nations to live in.

reply to post by romanmel


*sigh* Old myths about atheists. I don't feel any small voice calling me to any deity. I do feel a small voice calling me to explore and learn and create wonderful things and help those I can...it's called me.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!

Exhibit A

NOTE: I am using an article NOT supporting my argument as evidence.
Even when science is wrong, creationist arnt right

The equations used to derive the age of it from radiometric dating of numerous isotopes was fundamentally flawed because it assumed that the ratio of certain isotopes was the same. Detailed new measurements have shown it's not.

The article goes on to say they were marginally wrong - but nonetheless they were wrong, not there is anything wrong with that - considering it is the job of science to disproove itself.
However this demonstrates there are still constant changes to our understanding of what comparitively is a new technology when to the rest of our arsenal.

Exhibt B
Strange emision by Sun

‎

Laboratories around the globe have confirmed that the rate of radioactive decay—once thought to be a constant and a bedrock of science—is no longer a constant. Something being emitted from the sun is interacting with matter in strange and... unknown ways with the startling potential to dramatically change the nature of the very Earth itself.

If science is saying the rate of decay is no longer a constant then it doesnt matter if we are out by a little or a lot because it simply means in the grand scheme - we dont know. It means we know until our theory latest says we know and then we dont know. So since we have recently proven a theory incorrect it is fair to esitmate that in the grand scheme we dont know - time may not be constant, perception of time may not be constant, theories based on facts take from an unlinear, inconstant reality mean we should really just accept everyones theory is plausable - not matter how crazy it sound because we see such a little bit of the picture we have no way of knowing what is in the big one.

EXERCISE:
Imagine if you your vision was restricted - like looking through a long cardboard roll -
Image you look at the stars your whole life - only able to see a small section at any one time, if someone asked you to draw the night sky as accurately as possible you would have no idea what the big picture looked like... I think we try to use technology to see well beyond our natural abilities of vision, which is good - but we need to remeber that it is all well and good discribing, calculating and forming theories over what we a currently seeing - but we need to remember that there is more chance than not that in the grand scheme we are all wrong.

reply to post by byteshertz


um...but the whole point is that scientists don't make an absolute statement in the first place, and that the difference between the originally given age and the new age falls within the error bars on the original. Plus or minus one percent.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by byteshertz

 

um...but the whole point is that scientists don't make an absolute statement in the first place, and that the difference between the originally given age and the new age falls within the error bars on the original. Plus or minus one percent.

Exactly what my article said, science discribes the small picture but that does not mean science has the right to say everything else is wrong, science can simply say, based on what i currently see you are wrong...
I just wana see science say that for once - The title is "The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!" I dont think that sounds the same as "based on what i currently see you are wrong"

Originally posted by byteshertz
The article goes on to say they were marginally wrong - but nonetheless they were wrong, not there is anything wrong with that - considering it is the job of science to disproove itself.

Originally posted by NuclearMitochondria

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by NuclearMitochondria
6-10k years old may be when humans were seeded with intelligence? Who knows once again.

Yes, who knows..it could be just a metaphore of days to galactic cycles or as you suggest, when humans were seeded with intelligence, or...

wait...what...seeded with intelligence? 0o
whats that all about? You say you got a PhD...oh, let me go get some popcorn as you try to discuss what you meant by that...

Quote me and bold exactly where I say "I have a PhD" please and thanks.

From a earlier post (snipped)

Originally posted by NuclearMitochondria
FFS

I can't stand when people who study science at a university start spewing the word "science/scientific/science*" in their argument so much that if you replaced it with the word God you would sound like a cultist.
.....
Technically I guess I'm a scientist based on this thread since I finished a science degree at university.
.....
A real scientist is someone who has a PhD, or at least that's the consensus among the 'scientists' I know.
.....
As a scientist, I promise each and every one of you that I do take what you say and will try and find reasons for your point, and against your point.

I guess I misunderstood. you said a real scientist is someone with a PhD, and you called yourself technically a scientist before and said "as a scientist" afterwards.

I assume you can see how what you said can be understood as having a PhD, else you don't qualify as a "real" scientist by your own standard...which then begs the question, why would you say technically your a scientist?

-shrugs-

Still wanna hear your theory on the "seeding of intelligence"

reply to post by byteshertz


Well, it's more like "6000-10,000 years as the age of the Earth seems like an incredibly silly guess based on the incredibly accurate testing that we have performed, particularly as the margin of error on those tests itself is far greater than 10,000 years and yet still only constitutes a 1% margin."

...but that's not as catchy as a title now, is it?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Yeah, you're right, there was no mention of any radiometric testing done on the mineralized portion of this bone. I just took it for granted that it was 70 million years old, like they did in the introduction. The problem arises when they find the carbon date of the soft flesh material found inside the dinosaur bone. (if anyone hasn't clicked the article, you really should) Can't you step outside the box for once and do some thinking on your own? If the organic material was that old, why did fall into the halfway range of your little ruler example. Carbon testing is considered pretty accurate up to 40,000 yrs. They ruled out any contamination of the specimen from later sources, and it tested out at 24,600 yrs.
www.plosone.org...

Whatever testing we do it is always done now.
Every piece of 'evidence' shows up now.
We can not go into the past to find out what happened then.
All things appear presently.

Five minutes ago can not be proven.
Five minutes from now can not be proven.
Tomorrow and yesterday are concepts.

We can not make truth out of concepts.
Concepts themselves are not truth.
So no matter how many concepts you have and no matter how they are moved about, they will never produce truth.

Be honest with yourself.
We don't know anything about any 'thing'.
It is all poetry.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


More sophistry. Again, what does it matter if we cannot be absolutely certain when things work?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You wrote:
(More sophistry. Again, what does it matter if we cannot be absolutely certain when things work? )


You like using that word 'sophistry'.
What does your question mean?
What does it matter if we cannot be absolutey certain when things work?
I might try to answer if i understand it.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


No 'thing' works any other time than now.
Because there is no other time.
The past appears now and the future appears now.
'Things' can not appear any other time.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Why does being absolutely certain matter? Why can't we have margins of error? Things work. Science works. There's a margin of error of about 1% in even in some of the best cases, yet we still don't care.

Why? Because it works.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


There is a large margin of error when we believe we know.
Saying somebodies ideas are wrong but yours are right, is the error.
Nobody knows anything about any 'thing'.
It is ok to 'know' you are wrong about anything that is believed.
This is the only 'knowing' that is true.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


'Things' work, 'science' works???
Define 'works'.

It is you who comes here with all the facts, pushing them on people.
You don't care that there are errors in you thinking. Neither do I.
I like the truth though.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I'm waiting for my reply, but I have to go to work now. It would be nice if you could cite for me which of the two dating methods, carbon or radiometric, scientists agree is more dependable. You, and most of us here already know the answer, I just want to hear it out of Lord Madness' mouth.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I was an intelligence analyst for many years and gave many intelligence briefings even some that went to the joint chiefs...One of the key concepts is to never say what you don't know and never make anything up, because once your credibility is shot, it would be foolish for them to give anything else you say credence.

There are so many instances of the scientific community losing credibility over making up data, publishing eroneous data etc, they have lost credibility in my eyes, I am not likely to accept any conclusions that they make any time soon, I will look at any data and empirical evidence that they provide and make my own logical evaluations and judgements.

The circular logic that is the foundation of most of the modern paradigms makes it difficult for me to accept most conclusions and I for the most part am agnostic on most subjects although I do learn much of what they teach just to be aware of what their paradigms are.

I don't accept what the church teaches, any church, including those of the scientific community.

Jaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden

I am not likely to accept any conclusions that they make any time soon, I will look at any data and empirical evidence that they provide and make my own logical evaluations and judgements.

Ten out of ten

That is the power of science. The data is available for all to see.

The data leads to conclusions, often subjective. As such, you can guarantee it will be challenged by many other scientists. The application of critical thinking is essential in this arena. This is how our understanding moves forward - sure mistakes are made, but overall we progress.

Religion, on the other hand, goes nowhere.

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by primoaurelius

 

>i can see how you could think that. im not worried about proof, but rather there is a very large
>volume of growing evidence that contradicts fundamentalists views . also by no means do i
>not belive in god, just not a christian world view. and if you would like proof, i could argue for
>both sides, both sides, religion, and science, both have lessons to be learned, to say that one
>is 100% fact correct, is close minded and will inevitably lead to an incorrect assumption.

My 'in' into this conversation was you taking someone to task for a lack of demonstratable 'proof'.

Since the 'theory' your "growing evidence that contradicts fundamentalists views" comes from a

0 = 1!

'foundation', it is essentially USELESS.

Just endless SPECULATIVE ramblings...

>as for the big bang, to say that something was created from nothing is an incredible
>understatement. if you would really like for me to sit here and type out different scientific
>theories i certainly can; the universe in super position with itself, because "before" the big
>bang the universe was as small or smaller than a single atom, and atoms, unobserved, are
>in superposition with themselves, and while in superposition, it reached a certain threshold
>and became instantly came into being. blah blah, thatsone scientific theory.

That is NOT Science, nor is it 'scientific theory'...

Just 100% Absurdist nonsense.

>then i could argue for spirituality and say that the universe could not have come out of
>superposition unless it was observed by something, even itself, it became aware of itself,
>and instantly became the primordial universe.

>i could continue on and on but i would rather not.

You've left the road that is a scientific discourse and you are somewhere in some ravine... Can you get a signal with your cell?

I CAN help.

>the point is no one has all the right answers and to believe otherwise is folly.

>my original post was that the guy was saying that someone was flat out wrong, without stating
>how or why. much like you did.

Au contraire mon vieux...

The belief being espoused by ya'll (and the OP

) is...

Just tacked on RELIGIOUS babblings...

with a whole LOT of romantic notions...

that simply doesn't bear up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

Much less give you a 'basis' (to attempt) to point the finger at my religious brethren and take them to task for their supposed intellectual shortcomings.

>am i talking to fast?

Actually no... Still waiting for you to actually say something...

You know to back up that 'Science' knows best arrogance.

Or at least (make an attempt to) 'educate' me.

(Hint: Hint: I am at your disposal

)

edit on 16-5-2011 by golemina because: formatting (ad naseum!)

first and foremost, your choppy post barely makes sense

im not here to sling # at each other. i enjoy debate, which is what i was trying to do. however you come along and say "your wrong" BUT WHY AM I WRONG, PROVE ME WRONG DAMNIT.
which you probably cant even do, do you even know what superposition is, the observer, etc, etc.
the funny thing is, i am probably wrong, most of us are, but no one has made a decent attempt to prove otherwise. at least try, at least tell me why im wrong. and just because you cant understand superposition, doesnt mean i am wrong

i have come to the conclusion that most of the people on this website think they are 100% correct, but give no reason how or why. you say im wrong, but give NO reason why NONE.

AND EVEN IF YOU DO TRY, you will post a link of someone elses work, something you had no part in the creation of, and probably didnt even fully read, but you couldnt even do that! i also think its funny that we all make assumptions about what others believe, because i AT LEAST TRY to give a scientific explanation, i am most defenetly an atheist science loving close minded university type

seriously, do you know anything of quantum physics, (obviously not or you would have already come to grips with the fact that alot of it seem pretty far out) or even normal physics, OR EVEN ASTRONOMY, and i dont mean watching discovery channel, i mean actually reading books, studying, etc, etc. (pointless to even ask this question because like i said, you are right no matter what, so of corse your answer will be yes). or come in half way during the conversation and say a bunch of # that doesnt even make sense in the context of the previous conversation. and these romantic notions you speak of, those two words would best describe the virgin birth, the resurection, eaten by whales, living thru burning alive in an oven, Ezekiel; if you want to say these all really happened ( i personally belive they are all allegorical and symbolic ) than, you sir, live in a "romantic" world.

do yourself a favor, read some books, get off the cross, and if you want to tell someone they are wrong, make sure you can tell them why.

i have no problem admitting my wrongs, how else could i grow intellectually, just tell me why, GIVE ME A REASON TO BELIEVE YOU

Originally posted by NuclearMitochondria
FFS

I can't stand when people who study science at a university start spewing the word "science/scientific/science*" in their argument so much that if you replaced it with the word God you would sound like a cultist.

Militant Atheists that feel compelled to force the "You're wrong on all accounts" with the blindfold on drives me up the tree. I think they're just trolls hijacking science like the terrorists hijack islam.

man, ive been trying to get people to see this as well, and it seems like only those in the middle can see both sides. but lately ive been getting the "your wrong on all accounts" from both sides, with absolutly no evidence, not even a link, not even an intelligent statement to tell why.

and i always respond, "i probably am wrong, BUT TELL ME WHY". its not the end of the world if we are wrong about something, its how we learn, its how we grow.

but to say someone is wrong, flat out wrong, and then throw in some name calling, arguing, and lack of information to back up their beliefs, and they start to show their true colors, ignorance shines thru.

EVERYONE and EVERYTHING has something to give and lessons to learn, even the most strict scientist can learn something from the allegorical and symbolic stories of religion, and its the same the other way around. no one is 100% correct, but when we collectively pool our intelligence, we can all grow intellectually.