Human Footprints in Ancient Geological Layers

a reply to: Quadrivium

You have a tough time understanding English. Read it again and this time, try to understand the definition.

Settled science is roughly equivalent to the scientific consensus, the collective opinion of scientific experts in the field, based on superior evidence, usually published in peer-reviewed journals. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, settled science is only based on peer-reviewed, published, repeated, high-quality evidence.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Neat. Settled science is a myth, ergo none of us actually knows anything. We're all equally unqualified and can make peace on that basis. At least no one claims to be an expert and that's the most salient takeaway.

Settled science is a myth, fable, fabrication, outright lie if you like.
I didn't say that no one knows anything.
Our understanding changes as we learn more. The interpretation of a particular science MAY be understood to a point yet that interpretation may change as new evidence is compiled and our understanding increases.
That my friend is how science should work.
Claiming something is "settled science" is akin to a Creationist saying "God did it" and deters questioning.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Quadrivium

You have a tough time understanding English. Read it again and this time, try to understand the definition.

Settled science is roughly equivalent to the scientific consensus, the collective opinion of scientific experts in the field, based on superior evidence, usually published in peer-reviewed journals. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, settled science is only based on peer-reviewed, published, repeated, high-quality evidence.

And once again you show how little you understand science and just how nonobjective your view of it is.

The sad part is that you do not even see it.

Michael Crichton explains it best:

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.

And he continues:

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 are relevant are 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.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: Quadrivium

Settled science is NOT consensus science.

a reply to: Phantom423

Settled science is NOT consensus science.

Really?

As you said in an above post:

You have a tough time understanding English. Read it again and this time, try to understand the definition.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your definition:

Settled science is roughly equivalent to the scientific consensus, the collective opinion of scientific experts in the field, based on superior evidence, usually published in peer-reviewed journals. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, settled science is only based on peer-reviewed, published, repeated, high-quality evidence.

e·quiv·a·lent
/əˈkwiv(ə)lənt/

equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.
"one unit is equivalent to one glass of wine"


Scientific Consensus:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.

en.wikipedia.org...
Notice any similarities/equivalencies???

a reply to: Quadrivium

Get an education. There are online universities where you don't need to be a rocket scientist to enroll.

a reply to: Phantom423

I am not the one who needs to enroll.

I showed that you do not have a firm grip on the English language, that you have a nonobjective view of science (your religion) and now you start the insults.
typical.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Quadrivium

You have a tough time understanding English.

You have a tough time properly using science in your favor. You literally just quoted an equation that was identical to mine saying it was an updated version of the equation I was referencing. And now you scurry along and change the subject to avoid admitting you are wrong.

You're not objective, and even worse you have an awfully malicious heart.

a reply to: cooperton

And now you scurry along and change the subject to avoid admitting you are wrong.

If I was wrong, then all the references that I posted would be wrong as well as hundreds of other articles which cite radiometric methods to date fossils. It would also make you right, which you clearly are not.
You never understood how it works in the field and never will because you're hell-bent on supporting your cult interpretation of science. But the world moves on - obviously without you.

a reply to: Phantom423
Yet, you have been shown to be wrong.
"Cult"



HELLO POT!

originally posted by: Phantom423


If I was wrong, then all the references that I posted would be wrong as well

You can't hide behind fallacious appeals to authority/majority... the point you are trying to make is wrong. Those papers you cite have no magical explanation for knowing the initial concentration of of isotopic sample with certainty. You can't definitively know time elapsed 't' in the half-life equation unless you definitively know the initial concentration.

They rely on speculation that is biased towards their own narrative.

If you admit you were wrong regarding this fact of "settled science" we can start to accept your objectivity. But if you're unwilling to admit your mistakes then you're clearly a biased dogmatist that has no care for real world empiricism.

a reply to: cooperton

Your rant changes nothing. You're wrong. Get over it.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Your rant changes nothing. You're wrong. Get over it.

Let's go over why you are wrong. You said:

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

And please stop with your dumb interpretation of that equation. This is the correct set of equations:

Yet equation 1 above is the same equation that I gave:



The reason you can't tell is because it is denoted in a calculus function rather than a typical algebraic form. N(t) is the same as final amount, and N[subscript]o is the same as initial amount in the equation I provided.

The worst is that you're condescending about your ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about and you lash out rather than ever admitting you're wrong.

a reply to: cooperton

Your crackpot science doesn't hold up. Radiometric dating is comparative analysis.

The world has left you behind. Get over it.

sad that what could have been a reasonable debate has devolved into snark and repetition.

I cannot put that much faith into this mega-tech dating stuff. the more complicated a system, the more can go wrong.

Science is based on observation, and we just haven't had enough time to observe these processes. I can only put so much trust in speculation.

originally posted by: ElGoobero
sad that what could have been a reasonable debate has devolved into snark and repetition.

I cannot put that much faith into this mega-tech dating stuff. the more complicated a system, the more can go wrong.

Science is based on observation, and we just haven't had enough time to observe these processes. I can only put so much trust in speculation.

The "snark" is a reaction and response to obvious, intentional and purposeful nonsense, and deflection from actual science.

The science has been posted, detailed and explained umpteenth times in this thread, to no effect. The reason it has no effect is simply because creationists can't seem to grasp the basics, and insist that things happened "their way" even when the evidence points the actual way.
They simply "RE-interpret" the actual science to fit their laughable agenda.

originally posted by: Kreeate

The "snark" is a reaction and response to obvious, intentional and purposeful nonsense, and deflection from actual science.

The science has been posted, detailed and explained umpteenth times in this thread, to no effect. The reason it has no effect is simply because creationists can't seem to grasp the basics, and insist that things happened "their way" even when the evidence points the actual way.
They simply "RE-interpret" the actual science to fit their laughable agenda.

Human footprints are consistently found in sandstone and limestone layers. This shows evolutionary theory is false.

Your fallacious appeals to majority/authority are not actual evidence. If you want to debate you have to put forth empirical evidence, not appeals to authority.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kreeate

The "snark" is a reaction and response to obvious, intentional and purposeful nonsense, and deflection from actual science.

The science has been posted, detailed and explained umpteenth times in this thread, to no effect. The reason it has no effect is simply because creationists can't seem to grasp the basics, and insist that things happened "their way" even when the evidence points the actual way.
They simply "RE-interpret" the actual science to fit their laughable agenda.

Human footprints are consistently found in sandstone and limestone layers. This shows evolutionary theory is false.

Your fallacious appeals to majority/authority are not actual evidence. If you want to debate you have to put forth empirical evidence, not appeals to authority.

I don't debate idiocy. But good luck with your agenda, lol.