Posted by Jtpsops on 2/8/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Once again, you're trusting that their analysis of the decay rate of isotopes is correct. The only true way to do that would be to actively observe rocks over a period of time, and then extrapolate the observed rate of decay over a longer period of time. That's like saying "I saw Ozzie Smith homer in a game once. Since he played in 2,573 games, I know FOR A FACT that he hit 2,573 HR in his career!"

Fact is, scientists have been actively using this technology for much to short of a time span to conclusively KNOW what the rate of decay over thousands or millions of years would be. It's their best guess based on what they know now.

That's fair, to a point.  But what you're saying is you believe that when someone claims that a rock is 3 million years old, that they are wrong by 2,990,000 years.  That's quite a difference.  

And again, between option A and option B, A makes more sense to me.  It's not to say that B is wrong completely, but evidence I've been given points to A.  

That's precisely my point. Option A makes more sense to you, Option B makes more sense to me. Neither is more or less valid.

 

People like bad_luck would have us believe there's no room for disputing it.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/8/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/8/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 2/8/2013 2:08:00 PM (view original):
There it is - at least burnsy can admit he's a sheep following the majority opinion. Now if only the rest of you would follow suit.

When did I admit that? You are EXCELLENT at seeing **** that isn't actually there.

I apologize for looking at all the evidence available and making a decision.  If you have additional evidence I don't know about, speak up.

When you say "I believe X...but sure, if more than 50% of scientists told me Z, I'd switch and believe that", it really doesn't paint you as anyone capable of critical thought. It makes you sound like someone who constantly shifts his beliefs based on majority opinion.

I said "substantial majority." I should have been more specific.  I mean a theory that is well accepted by the scientific community.  Let's say 90%...is that better?

If 45% of people claimed that Ozzie Smith had less hits than what the majority felt, I wouldn't immediately assume the majority was right.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/8/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
That's precisely my point. Option A makes more sense to you, Option B makes more sense to me. Neither is more or less valid.

 

People like bad_luck would have us believe there's no room for disputing it.

You questioned by ability to think critically.  I was saying that you are wrong.

So let me get this right, burnsy (and I honestly want to know and am not trying to be a **** here).

You're saying if 90 percent of people agree on an idea (or a theory), then you will agree with them without examining alternative ideas (or theories)? If yes, does that apply just to science, or to other things as well?

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/8/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/8/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Once again, you're trusting that their analysis of the decay rate of isotopes is correct. The only true way to do that would be to actively observe rocks over a period of time, and then extrapolate the observed rate of decay over a longer period of time. That's like saying "I saw Ozzie Smith homer in a game once. Since he played in 2,573 games, I know FOR A FACT that he hit 2,573 HR in his career!"

Fact is, scientists have been actively using this technology for much to short of a time span to conclusively KNOW what the rate of decay over thousands or millions of years would be. It's their best guess based on what they know now.

That's fair, to a point.  But what you're saying is you believe that when someone claims that a rock is 3 million years old, that they are wrong by 2,990,000 years.  That's quite a difference.  

And again, between option A and option B, A makes more sense to me.  It's not to say that B is wrong completely, but evidence I've been given points to A.  

Option B is based entirely on a literary work, written thousands of years ago.  That work has been edited and parsed and changed over the millennia by priests and religious zealots with some very legitimate reasons to use the book to control thoughts and actions.

And, as I think I've made clear, I'm not against the concept of God, but I think anyone who accepts the Bible as anything but a religious manifesto is misguided at best.

I'm just curious as to how blacks, orientals, hispanics, and nords all developed if we all came from Adam/Eve.  Or if you accept the Noah ret-con, how we all developed from Noah and his daughters in only 10,000 years....

Posted by bistiza on 2/8/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
So let me get this right, burnsy (and I honestly want to know and am not trying to be a **** here).

You're saying if 90 percent of people agree on an idea (or a theory), then you will agree with them without examining alternative ideas (or theories)? If yes, does that apply just to science, or to other things as well?

If 90% of scientists agree (and more than that do agree in old world/evolution) in a scientific theory, and present evidence to state that it's true, I'll probably believe them.  They have no reason to lie or give inaccurate information.

You also make it seem like I haven't explored the opposing view.  I have. I've stated that I believe that God did create the universe.  I do believe in a creator.  Just that evolution is the means to which God has created man.  If you have evidence that states otherwise, (I've said this many times) please show me.  I LOVE getting all the information I can get.  I love to debate, partially because I want to learn about opposing viewpoints, and maybe I can be convinced that another idea is correct.

When I have more time, I'll give you more info, but for now I'll offer you a small bit:

I've read some of the work of Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist who is vehemently against the theory of evolution.

Naturally he faces a lot of criticism, including from other scientists, so please do not mention that as though it is news to me or as though it is a reason to simply dismiss him out of hand rather than to think critically about his works as you would any other scientist.

Perhaps Behe's most famous work is "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge To Evolution", a book first published in 1996 and again in 2006.  I have not read the book in its entirety, but as I said, I'm familiar with his work, and I believe what he has to say is at the least very interesting and at most a significant challenge to the theory of evolution.

By the way, I'm merely presenting you with ONE scientist who disagrees with mainstream evolutionary theory.  I do not plan to debate his credentials - or debate his book or ideas as though they are my own. It's just something I thought you might find interesting, burnsy.

It's good to challenge evolution (and other scientific theories). But challenging evolution is not the same as providing evidence of creation or intelligent design. He hasn't done that.

And I'd guess that even Behe doesn't believe that the world is only 10,000 years old.

I didn't dive in much to what he said, but it seems like his argument is "life is too complicated to be a product of evolution."  Which I understand.  If that's the way people feel, ok.  But there is A LOT of evidence that supports evolution.  

There are a lot of misguided statements which seem like they support evolution but don't stand up to scrutiny.  When you examine some of the supposed evidence for evolution with a critical eye, it is tremendously flawed.

Yes, Behe's essential argument is based on the complexity of life - but you have to keep in mind that this is  someone who studies the chemistry of life for a living. That doesn't guarantee he's right, but it does mean his opinion is more qualified.

There are so many holes in macroevolution I don't think I would ever believe it actually happened. You'd have to show me something conclusive, and I doubt that will occur.

And yet you believe that the world could be 10,000 years old, something there is exactly zero evidence for.

Even if there are some "holes", until there is evidence in a different theory, I'm going with the theory of which there is a lot of evidence for. It's also evidence I understand, it's just not "following the herd."

If the alternative evidence is "look around...how did God not create this?" - ok...I DO believe God created this, but it doesn't also disprove an old world and evolution.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest creationism could be true. I don't have the time to find links to all of it right now (and I might not later either), but if you search you can find other scientists who provide the underlying evidence for their ideas regarding creationism.

There are plenty of creationism scientists and philosophers who believe creationism is at least as viable a theory as evolution, if not moreso. Among them are Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and William Lane Craig. Each of those has written multiple books on everything from the complexity of cells and their structure to logical and philosophical reasoning that supports creation.

I usually try to remain neutral on scientific subjects unless I can see reason to do others. Much like my belief on the age of the earth, I don't think there is enough evidence to conclusively prove either creationism or evolution as being correct (by the way, bad_luck, I'm not reading your posts, so go ahead and attack that if you want to because no one cares).

I know you read my posts, no point in denying it.

Evidence of creation would equal evidence of God. There isn't any. All you have are challenges to evolution. That is not the same thing as evidence of creation or a young earth.