Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Objective evidence matters!!

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


The sun will rise tomorrow because of gravity...but aside from that, you do need objective evidence to call something truth.

Unless you're happy with "personal truth" which doesn't rely on any evidence. But if you go there, you also have to believe in gods with elephant heads, jungle monkey gods, and of course the flying spaghetti monster...because people who believe in those things call it "truth", while it really isn't.

So let me ask you this...do you believe in god given Sharia law? Because there's people who call that truth too


Again: OBJECTIVITY matters!!




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Apparently there is ZERO evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
Apparently there is ZERO evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow.
I thought tomorrow never comes?

Seriously we all know the sun does not rise ............. it's drawn across the sky in a chariot.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


Scientific theories make accurate predictions. The theory of gravity predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow. So far, it's been 100% accurate so we can safely say that the chances of the sun not rising tomorrow are so small as to be near non-existent. Doesn't matter though, the prediction is readily testable, all we have to do it wait up to 24 hours.

What predictions does creationism make that we can readily test?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I agree with most of your post but have problems with the translations of carbon dating when dating things. There is too much speculation involved and also the basis of the evolution of carbon dating has some issues itself. There is a lot more to take into consideration than what this science is testing, mostly not with the aging process itself but in the interpretation of the evidence.

I'll try to give an examples:

1) bones are found in an ancient structure. the carbon dating says they are two thousand years old. The structure is then assumed to be two thousand years old. The structure could be ten thousand years old though with someone dying in it two thousand years ago. Or...someone digging old bones up in their garden decides to bury them into the vacant structure as a sign of respect for the ancients. This makes the structure seem older than it really is.

2) The conditions of the soil could degenerate the bones faster or slower than expected, being that the soil two thousand years ago at the location may have been of different structure.


3) Permineralization of bone can happen within three hundred years under the right condition making the bones seem far older than they really are.

Some of the references for carbon dating could also be corrupted, the above two examples could have been used to determine how to interpret age. I have little faith in these dating methods as a sure thing. I could put a little radioactive rock in a casket with someone and the rate of decay would slow. (I think I got that right).

These dating practices have flaws just like everything man has created does. It can sometimes give us a clue but it can't be used as a definite science at all. These aging processes are flawed but it's the best we got right now. The other type of dating is more accurate than radio carbon dating but it's still got many problems because some of the evidence was taken from the same flawed sources as radio carbon.

I read a quite a few articles on the creation of these dating sciences, they state the problems they encountered and possible flaws in their philosophy. They aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes or anything. People, including some Archeologists and Anthropologists just think that these things are more accurate than they are. The results are often misused by people as absolute proof when in essence it is only a logical guess. I could never in good conscience use radio carbon dating as evidence to disprove anyone.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by uva3021
 


Scientific theories make accurate predictions. The theory of gravity predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow. So far, it's been 100% accurate so we can safely say that the chances of the sun not rising tomorrow are so small as to be near non-existent. Doesn't matter though, the prediction is readily testable, all we have to do it wait up to 24 hours.

What predictions does creationism make that we can readily test?


Since when does handicapping past performance become evidence for a prediction that we already know to be the truth ? You can't just write down the number of days something has previously happened and call that evidence for the prediction. The sun exists but when we predict something about it we know to be truth there is no evidence of that truth. If there is ? I'd like to see it ?

Maybe I'm wrong, but you certainly can't confine what you are saying to creationism.
edit on 25-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 





1) bones are found in an ancient structure. the carbon dating says they are two thousand years old. The structure is then assumed to be two thousand years old.


No...they would date the ancient structure separately from the bones...and therefore determine it's accurate age.




2) The conditions of the soil could degenerate the bones faster or slower than expected, being that the soil two thousand years ago at the location may have been of different structure.


Radiometric decay rates wouldn't change...so dating would still be accurate.




3) Permineralization of bone can happen within three hundred years under the right condition making the bones seem far older than they really are.


Again, that doesn't influence radiometric decay rates.




Some of the references for carbon dating could also be corrupted, the above two examples could have been used to determine how to interpret age. I have little faith in these dating methods as a sure thing. I could put a little radioactive rock in a casket with someone and the rate of decay would slow. (I think I got that right).


Read up a bit more about radiometric dating...you're misunderstanding some things


The basic Wiki article isn't bad, but this link explains in more detail why decay rates are constant: LINK




These dating practices have flaws just like everything man has created does. It can sometimes give us a clue but it can't be used as a definite science at all. These aging processes are flawed but it's the best we got right now. The other type of dating is more accurate than radio carbon dating but it's still got many problems because some of the evidence was taken from the same flawed sources as radio carbon.


That's incorrect...and if you read the Wiki article and the one I linked you'll know why


By the way, the margins of error for radiometric dating methods is really small. If you had the same margins of error when examining investments, you'd be filthy rich...and every doctor would pay you like crazy to have success rates like that.

By the way, googling "radiometric decay rates" took less than a minute...just saying...fact checking your posts saves others a ton of work.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by uva3021
 


Scientific theories make accurate predictions. The theory of gravity predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow. So far, it's been 100% accurate so we can safely say that the chances of the sun not rising tomorrow are so small as to be near non-existent. Doesn't matter though, the prediction is readily testable, all we have to do it wait up to 24 hours.

What predictions does creationism make that we can readily test?


Since when does handicapping past performance become evidence for a prediction that we already know to be the truth ? You can't just write down the number of days something has previously happened and call that evidence for the prediction. The sun exists but when we predict something about it we know to be truth there is no evidence of that truth. If there is ? I'd like to see it ?
edit on 25-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Just fyi, scientists can calculate to the second when the sun will rise at the exact location you live. Give me your latitude and longitude (or PM it...) and I'll tell you when the sun will rise for you tomorrow.

Examining past performance is exactly how you forecast the future. It's how scientists come up with medicine for example. If a certain med cures the flu 1000/1000 times during clinical trials, guess what...they expect it to happen again in the future.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Since when does handicapping past performance become evidence for a prediction that we already know to be the truth ?

Because the theory explains how and why the sun rises. It is readily tested not just with our own planet, but other planetary bodies and their orbits. It's testable and it makes useful predictions, ergo it is good science.



You can't just write down the number of days something has previously happened and call that evidence for the prediction.

Nope, but you can predict exactly where Earth will be in relation to the sun at any given date and time and test that prediction. Nice attempt to misrepresent my argument, though.


The sun exists but when we predict something about it we know to be truth there is no evidence of that truth. If there is ? I'd like to see it ?

What does that sentence even mean? Please state your question succinctly and clearly.

Considering I've taken the time to answer your questions, it's not unreasonable to expect you to answer my questions, so I ask again:

What predictions does creationism make that we can readily test?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


There is also the point of perspective. From where I am the sun rises and sets. If we use something as a point of perspective than our life revolves about it. There is no right or wrong in reality many times, just a difference of perspective. I see a lot of flaws in people flaunting scientific facts yet the scientific researchers evidence itself is full of exclusions where the evidence does not apply. That is because a true scientist cannot say his evidence always applies. Science evolves and is based on the perspective of society at the time.

We really don't know anything for sure except sh!t flows downhill and payday's on Friday. And even that has conditions that apply.

Does it really matter if the sun rotates around the earth or the earth rotates around the sun? Not really...
edit on 25-6-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Again: OBJECTIVITY matters!!


Again what OP is saying is to broad a statement to confine to only creationism. Altho it is in said forum that doesn't
set the limits in comparison to the statement does it ?

X


Examining past performance is exactly how you forecast the future. It's how scientists come up with medicine for example. If a certain med cures the flu 1000/1000 times during clinical trials, guess what...they expect it to happen again in the future.


You don't see any difference ?
edit on 25-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Ricky



Does it really matter if the sun rotates around the earth or the earth rotates around the sun? Not really...


I don't why the semantics either. I thought I would just refer to things as they are called in society, but suddenly, I have to speak in terms of astrophysics.
edit on 25-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The sun appears to rise before it actually does, a little reflective property of the atmosphere. The sun has already set when we are watching the sunset also. So how does this fit into pinpointing an exact time of sunrise and sunset? This is not taken into consideration when figuring sunrise and sunset from a location, just straight line viewing is taken into consideration.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The sun appears to rise before it actually does, a little reflective property of the atmosphere. The sun has already set when we are watching the sunset also. So how does this fit into pinpointing an exact time of sunrise and sunset? This is not taken into consideration when figuring sunrise and sunset from a location, just straight line viewing is taken into consideration.


You've just contradicted yourself with this statement:

"The sun appears to rise before it actually does, a little reflective property of the atmosphere. The sun has already set when we are watching the sunset also."

So clearly we know where the sun actually will be to know that atmospheric refraction is causing it to appear at a different position. All of this is explained by and predicted with science.

reply to post by randyvs
 

I'm still waiting to hear from you what predictions creationism makes that are readily testable.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


This is what I'm saying. Apologies my bad.


Again what OP is saying is to broad a statement to confine to only creationism. Altho it is in said forum that doesn't set the limits in comparison to the statement does it ?





I'm still waiting to hear from you what predictions creationism makes that are readily testable.


Absolutly none. To give you what I think you are looking for.
edit on 25-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Wiki is alright but I prefer to read journal entries and scientific sites. I use Wiki as a starting point of my research just to get ideas. Sometimes Wiki is accurate though but it only gives a one sided limited perception many times.

I prefer articles like this, they are more interesting. This is just one quick example I found, there are hundreds more out there. I expect you will probably just read a little bit of the article and say it backs up your perception. Most people only see what they think they know. I see both sides in this article.

sciencevsevolution.org...



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
^
so you prefer biased sites that's sole purpose is to attack evolution, with complete disregard to how science actually works. Gotcha.


Originally posted by randyvs
Since when does handicapping past performance become evidence for a prediction that we already know to be the truth ? You can't just write down the number of days something has previously happened and call that evidence for the prediction. The sun exists but when we predict something about it we know to be truth there is no evidence of that truth. If there is ? I'd like to see it ?


This is for Ricky, not just you, but there is evidence. It's called the rotation of the earth. If the earth continues to rotate, the sun will continue to "rise" in our sky. Simple. If the earth stopped rotating then people would predict that the sun would no longer rise and they would be right. Of course in order for that to happen, there would have to be a major disaster, which would probably kill all life on earth before we'd even get to say "the sun won't rise tomorrow". This is how tangible evidence works, it's based on reality and things you can measure (ex the rotation of the earth). No matter what your perspective is, it doesn't change the FACT that the earth revolves around the sun. Perspective doesn't change reality.
edit on 25-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


The earth spinning doesn't gaurantee the sun will be there even if it does keep spinning.
So does that really constitute objective evidence for the statement ?

I say

The sun will rise tomorrow ? No evidence, just faith.
The sun does rise on the morrow = truth.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Barcs
 


The earth spinning doesn't gaurantee the sun will be there even if it does keep spinning.
So does that really constitute objective evidence for the statement ?

I say

The sun will rise tomorrow ? No evidence, just faith.
The sun does rise on the morrow = truth.


You can't change the variables of the equation UNLESS THEY ACTUALLY CHANGE IN REALITY.

Like I said, barring some crazy natural disaster, if the earth continues to rotate on its axis and revolve around the sun, the sun will always 'rise' in the morning until it goes red giant and swallows the earth. Unless the factors that cause this are altered, the facts remain facts. If you rely on faith for the sun rise each day, then I feel bad for you. It must be terrifying wondering everyday if the sun will rise.
edit on 25-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Like I said, barring some crazy natural disaster, if the earth continues to rotate on its axis and revolve around the sun, the sun will always 'rise' in the morning until it goes red giant and swallows the earth. Unless the factors that cause this are altered, the facts remain facts. If you rely on faith for the sun rise each day, then I feel bad for you. It must be terrifying wondering everyday if the sun will rise


How bad do you feel ? Wanna send me a couple bucks so you can feel better ?


I'm not terrified of anything OK ?
Maybe a little shy at times but it hides well on line.

I jest.

There isn't anything factual about a future prediction. And the only proof that the prediction is thee truth. Will only come with the sun rise on the morrow.
edit on 25-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by randyvs
 


There is also the point of perspective. From where I am the sun rises and sets. If we use something as a point of perspective than our life revolves about it. There is no right or wrong in reality many times, just a difference of perspective. I see a lot of flaws in people flaunting scientific facts yet the scientific researchers evidence itself is full of exclusions where the evidence does not apply. That is because a true scientist cannot say his evidence always applies. Science evolves and is based on the perspective of society at the time.

We really don't know anything for sure except sh!t flows downhill and payday's on Friday. And even that has conditions that apply.

Does it really matter if the sun rotates around the earth or the earth rotates around the sun? Not really...
edit on 25-6-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)


Well...even if you're on earth it's clear the sun doesn't go around the earth.


So no, that's not a matter of perspective...it's a matter of having the KNOWLEDGE to figure it out. And that requires research...research those who found out the earth goes around the sun conducted.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join