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

reply to post by Masterjaden
Its possible for one to be educated beyond their capacity for optimism. A skeptic is a necessity, and thus all scientist should practice certain degrees of skepticism if not make it a religion of sorts. But doubting the process is reductive and does not in any way contribute to the advancement of science. The 3-5% of scientists who have exercised egregious error and miscalculation, wittingly or unwittingly, will ultimately be exposed by fellow scientists because of the nature of peer-review, and the rigorous principles set forth by the fathers of the scientific method (Popper, Hume, Kuhn, et al). If the experiment is presented with clarity and the experiment is accessible, others, because of the natural skepticism and competition between scientists, will attempt to repeat the experiment in due course.

Not sure if your opinion is directed towards the actual people employing the science, or the scientific method itself, but the very notion of the scientific method - try to disprove your main hypothesis, as well as validate alternative hypotheses - can not be disputed as sound methodology to assess certainty and probability. Its without question, the finest principle underlying any industry that drives human competition and invention.

There are people who think the world has only been around for 6,000 years?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Helious
One cannot rely totally on carbon dating. It has been shown to be flawed recently and caught many people off guard. This is still being hashed out but you must consider that what we once thought we knew, maybe, has to be re calculated.

No it hasn't, they figured out that the effect of the sun on decay rates is predictable and they've figured out how to calibrate and compensate around it.

I don't think they have an explanation of this yet Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4

In a simple point of fact, there has not been an explanation of why we see this in observable science, no method has been introduced as of yet to "account" nor "calculate" this discrepantly. There is conjecture and discussion but there is fact behind the evidence that has yet to be understood.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

You said: It's accurate up to 40,000 yrs, which means that samples dated that are older than 40,000 yrs get wildly varying and incredibly odd results. Including younger than 40,000 yrs. / There was no evidence found of specimen contamination from outside sources, and that's the only reason these false dates are found. If you can assume that flesh can be preserved for 80 million years and retain some elasticity, you can assume just about anything.

reply to post by Helious


This has already been addressed, not going over it again. Slog through the last dozen or so pages. They even provided the original Stanford source. It was found that such interference follows a pattern. There's a reason why they haven't decided to just toss out carbon-14 dating.

reply to post by painterdude

There was no evidence found of specimen contamination from outside sources, and that's the only reason these false dates are found.

Or when you date a sample that's older than 40,000 years, as I explained in what you just quoted from me. Also, why did you fail to address that you asked me a nonsense question?

If you can assume that flesh can be preserved for 80 million years and retain some elasticity, you can assume just about anything.

Well, I can assume that under just the right circumstances, flesh can be preserved if it's encased rapidly enough and the encased environment is hostile to bacteria...like mosquitoes in amber.

reply to post by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

What on earth leads you to believe that I don't know that much about science....

Well, I was saying that in comparison to people who make it their profession.

Also, your explanations regarding relativity and radiometric dating. You acted as if it's an insurmountable problem when it really isn't because it's been handled. Oh, and you said that relativity was unproven when they use it to calibrate the clocks on all GPS satellites. Read this.

Wow, I obviously understand relativity better than you, yet you start slinging around that I don't understand science. I happen to have two bachelor's and a master's and atleast one of those degrees is in one of the sciences....

OOO...which science does it happen to be? I doubt that it's physics.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you on the modern PARADIGMs of science does not mean that they are not well versed in the sciences...

When someone demonstrates that they are not well versed in a particular science, they are not well versed in the sciences.

In my case it is just the opposite, it wasn't until I became well versed in the sciences that I started to see all of the holes and flaws in logic of them...

There aren't any logical flaws in the majority of modern paradigms...I won't say that there are no flaws at all, but the problem here is that you're confusing intuitive issues with how science actually works.

Science is counter-intuitive, your intuitions about it are easily explained away.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Ill say again, the only reason a false date can occur is from contamination. Should have said radioisotope if you want to split hairs about it. As far as this being a rare occurrence, keep your eyes open, it's not as rare as you might expect. Not everyone is willing to let their fossil be destroyed.

reply to post by painterdude


I meant rare as in...it doesn't happen all that often. Granted, I'm sure there's a possible method that could be developed for checking what's inside.

And I just skimmed through and did find something interesting..

nd most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex)

I didn't know that bacteria don't count as contamination.

reply to post by Helious

In a simple point of fact, there has not been an explanation of why we see this in observable science, no method has been introduced as of yet to "account" nor "calculate" this discrepantly. There is conjecture and discussion but there is fact behind the evidence that has yet to be understood.

Let's address a few other points of fact on the subject. Is it a measurable phenomenon? Yes. Is it a cyclic phenomenon? Yes. Is the maximum change in decay rate during that measurable cycle a fraction of a percent? Yes.

The first point means that calculations can be adjusted to compensate, but that's only really necessary when you're measuring decay rates on the order of days or months. The second point means that, over a time period that is several orders of magnitude larger than the cycle, the cycle averages out and the decay rate is, effectively, constant. The third point means that even if we weren't aware of this phenomenon, the dates assigned by radiometric methods wouldn't be significantly different.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

They didn't find bacteria, they found evidence that bacteria drilled into the bone at some time. Probably immediately after it's death. Did you bother to read the title of the paragraph? Some expert...but it had to be encased in resin or tree sap to keep the bacteria away so the flesh could stay pliable for 80 million years! Did you know B Rex was found sticking up out of the ground, exposed to the weather at the time of discovery, with no evidence of ever having been protected from the elements that would degrade flesh. You think sandstone would protect the flesh? Keep trying.

reply to post by uva3021


But your wrong, because of the nature of man. The scientific establishment has shown again and again that they can't be trusted for peer review, if you take a stance outside the purview of the establishment, you are ostracised until you have no choice but to go along with the establishment. It has happened time and again. How many of the now accepted theories weren't accepted at all during the lifetimes of their thinkers???

It's nothing against science, it's the nature of man. Peer review can only go so far when the very foundations of most of the sciences are corrupt and or based on circular logic. Once something is accepted by the establishment and other principles and science is based on that accepted "fact" you are doomed to go further and further from the truth even with peer review because of the nature of man and it is only through epiphany and undeniable evidence (isn't truly possible) that you have paradigm shifts.


The main problems in science and peer review started once they had started using inductive reasoning to determine so called fact, because any "fact" that was then used as a basis and foundation for other theories and "facts" was inherently distorted... Couple that with fanatical religious adherence to paradigmical doctrine of the sciences and you get farther from the truth not closer.

Jaden

reply to post by Masterjaden

But your wrong, because of the nature of man.

As far as I know, you’re human. So everything that you say should be held as suspect as you find the peer review process, including your opinions of the peer review process.

The scientific establishment has shown again and again that they can't be trusted for peer review, if you take a stance outside the purview of the establishment, you are ostracised until you have no choice but to go along with the establishment. It has happened time and again. How many of the now accepted theories weren't accepted at all during the lifetimes of their thinkers???

You’re conflating an irrational rejection due to preexisting notions with a lack of universal acceptance for a new theory due to lack of evidence. A new scientific theory isn’t the result of a single peer reviewed paper.

It's nothing against science, it's the nature of man. Peer review can only go so far when the very foundations of most of the sciences are corrupt and or based on circular logic. Once something is accepted by the establishment and other principles and science is based on that accepted "fact" you are doomed to go further and further from the truth even with peer review because of the nature of man and it is only through epiphany and undeniable evidence (isn't truly possible) that you have paradigm shifts.

The main problems in science and peer review started once they had started using inductive reasoning to determine so called fact, because any "fact" that was then used as a basis and foundation for other theories and "facts" was inherently distorted... Couple that with fanatical religious adherence to paradigmical doctrine of the sciences and you get farther from the truth not closer.

You’re asserting that science is based solely on logical induction and completely ignoring the empirical aspect of it. It’s no wonder you have such a skewed view of science when you’re only seeing half of it.

reply to post by Masterjaden
I think the recalcitrance of the scientific community is just the nature of competition. The more popular an idea, the more it resists invasion. Having said that, paradigm shifts do happen, and new ideas do invade.


There have been probably three major ones in the last 500 years. Copernicus/Galileo, Newton, and Darwin. I'm hesitant to say Einstein because Newton still gets us to the Moon, even though fundamentally special relativity resolves more of the variance on gravitational forces than does Newton.

Think of the brilliant evolutionary theorists and scientists. From Fisher/Haldane to Dawkins/Maynard-Smith, the concept of the "gene-centered view" has been embraced by the scientific community because of the evidence, while other ideas such as group selection and intelligent design fail to meet the standards of evidence. I fail to see any conspiracy in supporting one theory over another. There are plenty of incentives for scientists to be part of a revolution.

reply to post by madness mysoul


There are no rational arguments.
There are provocateurs with big sticks, who are getting sick of being wrong.
Instead of seeing this fact (based on the evidence of the majority on this thread), insults are the norm.

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by golemina

 

Those are called citations... They back my argument... Obviously you aren't familiar with the concept as you never use them.

So what you are saying is you don't have any evidence to refute or argue against the position and accepted understanding of those subjects? What has your heavy lifting shown to refute said claims? I like to be well informed in my decisions... What evidence can you provide for me to better educate myself on thes subjects?

Based on your response, I'm guessing you don't understand either concept or the science behind them. However, I'm all ears if "your" research suggests a different alternative.

Oh I understand!

'Evidence'?



There is an ENTIRE planet out there... mocking you... and your silly notions.

You live in a fantasy world populated by circular 'logic' nonsensical fabrications that 'exists' only in it's fairy tale walls.

>I'm guessing you don't understand either concept or the science behind them.

I'm sorry...

is 0 = 1! TOO complicated for you?

I just DESTROYED your 'Bing Bang' theory.

It is YOU that is unable to comprehend your incomprehension... (Ouch! )

AND... apparently are quite happy about it.

Good enough for me.

Next!

reply to post by golemina


you didn't destroy the big bang theory
i gave you a real answer with science behind it and you simply laughed it off

and if the big bang theory was being destroyed...scientists would've discarded that theory
and im sure they are a lot smarter than you are

this will be my last post to reply to you...

you can have the last words
but your ignorance will be everybody's last laugh

reply to post by iterationzero


First off, I haven't accepted ANY theory, let alone a new theory... I accept my own logical evaluation of the evidence and that has led me to be agnostic in regards to the age of the earth, because there is no direct evidence that has been presented that can lead one to any logical conclusion regarding the age of the earth. My personal view is that both parties are interpreting the evidences both right and wrong, and some members of both parties are just blindly accepting what they're told without checking the evidences at all.

I have stated and I will state again, I do NOT necessarily believe that the earth is 6000 years old, but I also don't believe that the interpretation of available evidence shows that it is even millions of years old let alone, 4.5 billion years old.

My study of man, My first degree was in psychology, leads me to believe that much of what we accept as fact is what makes the groups and individuals most confortable given their learning evnironment and belief structures, and all of the peer review in the world isn't going to change that nature or the human inclination.

So in effect, I will always seek out actual evidences and try to logically evaluate them to the best of my ability before I will blindly accept ANYONE else's evaluations.

I will patently state with nothing but a logical standpoint that no PROOF has been presented that the earth is older than 10K years, but then what is a year though??

I will say that the majority of the evidence, DOES point to the earth having been here to the equivalent TIME of 4+ billion current years, but I don't believe that the earth has traveled around the sun 4 billion times.

Jaden

p.s. Here is a reason that you are probably incapable of logically evaluating the evidences for yourself, reading comprehension issues abound, I never said that science solely relies on inductive reasoning, I said that as soon as science tried to proclaim that FACT could be assertained from inductive logic, they were doomed to build upon errors in logic and end up farther from the truth.

Science is GREAT and is one of the best principles useable for understanding reality. It has been bastardized and modified to feed the egos and the pocket books of the institutions of science though and is largely too corrupt to be trusted, much like the church has been in the past.

When empirical data is presented and logical evluations are used to come to belief based conclusion and it is presented as such, then science is great. To proclaim it as the be all end all does not do the world justice though and to proclaim that those who disagree with paradigms as insane or illogical, makes you look foolhardy and incapable of self reasoning.

reply to post by simonsayz


That's a fallacious argument, it's called appeal to authority. Scientists are no more likely to be correct than anyone else, and in fact because they are pressured by group speak and other social factors more than the individual is, especially in today's religious scientific climate, they are more likely to not accept newer more correct ideas... and to stay with the old erroneous established notions.

Jaden

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


>So you'll just poison the well...it's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's data. The amount of
>dishonest work is nothing compared to the amount of honest work.

You're just fooling yourself.

There are endless examples where 'Scientists' are simply incapable of seeing or comprehending the ABSOLUTE FALSENESS of their viewpoints, their theories, their results.

They are so certain of the their tenets that they are no longer anything close to being Scientists and have become a very sad parody of a rational thinking human being something I call 'Scientists'.

One of the most flagrant examples that immediately jumps to mind would be oncologists. They are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right and they just keep on MURDERING 'patients' by the millions (for a very nice tidy profit! ) with a treatment approach sometimes called CHEMOTHERAPY.

There are people with REAL knowledge of medicine that quietly remedy the defects of folks afflicted with cancer. It really is quite simple.

That reduces down to MURDER FOR PROFIT...

Exactly which part of 'honest work' is that?

>Really? Then how is it that all of the theory that goes into your computer isn't?

Huh?

>Nope.

You're NOT talking to the feebles now...

Brraaaannnn! Rejected.

The 'Big Bang' theory is absolutely a CREATIONIST myth!

And... Not a very good one.

>You just labelled a bunch of scientific concepts and a human search for ETs...

Masterjaden has been nailing your hide to the wall.

I'm fully prepared to delve into any of these self-fulfilling circular theories/schools of thought/etc. but instead of actually engaging in a REAL DISCOURSE, you just chose (to attempt) to play the debunker and are hiding behind your grandmothers skirt...

Using the tactic of DENIAL.

I accept your surrender.