Age of the World

[Chalnoth]

Every scientific theory must make risky predictions, things that will be found if the theory is true. If these predictions turn out to be false then the theory is false. There is no reinterpretation.

Well, technically, there are three possibilities:
1. The experimenters made a mistake.
2. The theorists made a mistake in how they drew conclusions from the theory.
3. The theory was wrong.

All three happen from time to time, and the key is discovering which. The first is corrected for by independent analysis of the same phenomenon, or of related phenomena that measure the same parameters in the theory. The second is corrected for by independent investigation into what the conclusions of the theory actually are (this part is mathematical, and can thus be proven). If the first two are shown not to be an issue, then the theory is either modified or discarded. And this is, by the way, the most exciting thing for scientists to discover: new theories don't come up every day. Finding that we have an experiment that can't be explained by current theories means we have a way of discovering something fundamentally new.

But when a theory passes the tests again and again, as evolution has, we gain confidence that even if the theory isn't correct everywhere, there is at least a realm of application for which it is valid. This is the case for Darwinian evolution, even though biologists have significantly modified the theory: the original theory still stands up to essentially all observations within a specific range of application.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, technically, there are three possibilities:
1. The experimenters made a mistake.
2. The theorists made a mistake in how they drew conclusions from the theory.
3. The theory was wrong.

I was assuming that #1 and #2 were already covered. An incorrect prediction can be determined independently of the data and incorrect methodologies can be determined independently of the prediction, as you mentioned. The important part is the independence of the theory and data.

If the first two are shown not to be an issue, then the theory is either modified or discarded. And this is, by the way, the most exciting thing for scientists to discover: new theories don't come up every day. Finding that we have an experiment that can't be explained by current theories means we have a way of discovering something fundamentally new.

Exactly. Modern scientists are both lucky and unlucky. We have many shoulders to stand on, but almost all of the fundamental aspects of nature have already been discovered. A good analogy is modern explorers compared to Columbus and Cook. No one is finding new continents because they have already been found.

But when a theory passes the tests again and again, as evolution has, we gain confidence that even if the theory isn't correct everywhere, there is at least a realm of application for which it is valid. This is the case for Darwinian evolution, even though biologists have significantly modified the theory: the original theory still stands up to essentially all observations within a specific range of application.

Evo-Devo is perhaps the most exciting field in evolutionary biology right now for the very reason that the genetic basis of development is not as well understood as other fields, such as population genetics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Didn't you know the world is only 800 years old?


Speaking of this, I was watching something on TV about the Shroud of Turin (BBC: "Shroud of Turin: Material Evidence") being younger than it is (by over 1,000+ years) because 'carbon 14 dating' when it was used, was inaccurate as the carbon dioxide staying in the air, if it covered 2% of the shroud, would have changed the age by that much! They then showed some pictures of the shroud from earlier manuscripts.

So, how accurate is C14 testing anyway? If you believe it is, how many times do you need to do it to make it accurate (as was seen with this, it is an earlier item, forgery or non-forgery that isn't the case, it's a lot earlier because they have an exactly the same picture in an earlier book in Hungary or somewhere). I'm not a YECer, but I was curious. Maybe it should be in a new thread..


YECers, have fun.

The quality of the sample is important in 14C dating. For example, some substances can absorb atmospheric CO2, others can be contaminated by external organic material or bacteria. However, the 14C dating methodology has been tested extensively using annual records such as lake varves, ice cores, coral doublets (U/Th crossdating), and tree rings. This allows scientists to adjust for historical fluctuations in atmospheric 14C concentrations. The data looks like this:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.htm

The diagonal solid line represents the true age and the data points represent the measured 14C age using modern atmospheric 14C concentrations. As you can see, the data points fall very close to the actual age.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Still waiting on those proofs of yours, juvenissun. I am intrigued to see how they defeat the mountains of evidence in favor of the theory of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still waiting on those proofs of yours, juvenissun. I am intrigued to see how they defeat the mountains of evidence in favor of the theory of evolution.

[bible]Matthew 17:20[/bible]

What mountains of evidence?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What mountains of evidence?

The ones you choose to ignore so that you can worship a book undisturbed.

 

[AV1611VET]

The ones you choose to ignore so that you can worship a book undisturbed.

I see you've joined my Heckle and Jeckle fan club.

What's wrong, Nathan? Tired of debating with others, so now you think you're good enough to take on a sola scriptura? (Or solo scriptura, as RMWILLIAMS called me.)

 

[Vene]

I see you've joined my Heckle and Jeckle fan club.

What's wrong, Nathan? Tired of debating with others, so now you think you're good enough to take on a sola scriptura? (Or solo scriptura, as RMWILLIAMS called me.)

I'd like to see Mr. Defender of the Faith move a mountain.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'd like to see Mr. Defender of the Faith move a mountain.

It's not in God's will.

 

[juvenissun]

Still waiting on those proofs of yours, juvenissun. I am intrigued to see how they defeat the mountains of evidence in favor of the theory of evolution.

I gave a format as an example of proof, Chalnoth does not take it. So, I am not giving anything until we have an agreement on how should the proof look like.

What kind of proof do you like to see? Remind you that the Bible is not a logic book. So if you are asking for a logic proof, it is not there. But, so wasn't it anywhere in evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Then why don't you list a few?

It would take some arguments to understand. I don't know if you would take the argument. ( my guess is that you would not)

For example, if the Bible says the sky is colorless, would you consider it is a true statement? Or if the Bible says the sky is "clear", would you take it as the same as "colorless"? If you don't take the interpretation, then I probably could not convince you.

 

[Chalnoth]

It would take some arguments to understand. I don't know if you would take the argument. ( my guess is that you would not)

For example, if the Bible says the sky is colorless, would you consider it is a true statement? Or if the Bible says the sky is "clear", would you take it as the same as "colorless"? If you don't take the interpretation, then I probably could not convince you.

Why not just stop beating around the bush and present it? Because, you know, your hesitance to do so sounds, to us, a lot like you know your argument is completely invalid. It sounds like you know that it is full of logical errors. And therefore you fear that your own weaknesses in logic will be pointed out to you and made bare.

In short, your failure to just come out and state your argument makes it seem like you don't have any argument at all.

 

[Skaloop]

It would take some arguments to understand. I don't know if you would take the argument. ( my guess is that you would not)

For example, if the Bible says the sky is colorless, would you consider it is a true statement? Or if the Bible says the sky is "clear", would you take it as the same as "colorless"? If you don't take the interpretation, then I probably could not convince you.

"Clear" and "colourless" are not at all the same thing. The sky is certainly clear; it is not colourless to our eyes, however. Furthermore, clear is not nearly so defined by our senses as colour is.

 

[Vene]

I gave a format as an example of proof, Chalnoth does not take it. So, I am not giving anything until we have an agreement on how should the proof look like.

What kind of proof do you like to see? Remind you that the Bible is not a logic book. So if you are asking for a logic proof, it is not there. But, so wasn't it anywhere in evolution.

*yawn*
Evidence for macroevolution and common descent
Observed speciation
Fossil evidence of horse evolution
Whale evolution
Endrogenous retroviruses
Human chromosome 2

So, what's creationism got?

 

[juvenissun]

*yawn*
Evidence for macroevolution and common descent
Observed speciation
Fossil evidence of horse evolution
Whale evolution
Endrogenous retroviruses
Human chromosome 2

So, what's creationism got?

Creationism got every piece of data on your list.
Except creationism has the correct conclusion.

 

[Skaloop]

Creationism got every piece of data on your list.
Except creationism has the correct conclusion.

Please explain how all those pieces of data lead to the Creationist conclusion.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Creationism got every piece of data on your list.
Except creationism has the correct conclusion.

Creationist explanations for ERVs and human ancestral chromosome fusion are transparently tarted-up versions of "God wanted it to look that way."

You should be insulted that your informers think so little of your intelligence that they toss out half-baked theology in place of science and simply expect you to swallow it.

 

[FishFace]

I see you've joined my Heckle and Jeckle fan club.

What's wrong, Nathan? Tired of debating with others, so now you think you're good enough to take on a sola scriptura? (Or solo scriptura, as RMWILLIAMS called me.)

Har har. We've been taking you on for years, AV - for a "defender of the faith" you'd think your armour would have fewer holes in it.

 

[juvenissun]

"Clear" and "colourless" are not at all the same thing. The sky is certainly clear; it is not colourless to our eyes, however. Furthermore, clear is not nearly so defined by our senses as colour is.

So, if I say the Bible is correct in this case, you can say that I am wrong.

If so, I can not convince you. And I am not going to tell you what is the science revealed in the Bible. As a result, you have high chance to miss the wonderful Biblical message in science.

 

[juvenissun]

Please explain how all those pieces of data lead to the Creationist conclusion.

Evolutionist have no idea on what those data mean. They simply make up a story to satisfy any report or publication (Pretended that they made some type of prediction or discovery, so they can get the next grant or budget. That is called intelligent self-cheating).

Creationist sees the same data. They do not understand them either, but not a bit less than what evolutionist can see. However, the research confirms their belief more and more.