In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[lesliedellow]

Quite convenient for the scientists that formulated their own theories. Maybe those of you who push evolution and take a tip from Albert Einstein, when he wrote; "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

That is always the case. In order for something to be considered a scientific theory. it must, in principle, be falsifiable. But the longer it remains unfalsified, the more likely it is to be correct.

 

[RickG]

Quite convenient for the scientists that formulated their own theories. Maybe those of you who push evolution and take a tip from Albert Einstein, when he wrote; "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Why pursue and believe in something that can never be proven right? There are just so many inconsistencies in this area.

The problem StanJ is that you don't have a clue what a scientific theory is. There are no proofs in science, proofs are unique to mathematics. A scientific theory is the highest order of understanding of achievable. Theories are never proven nor do they becomes laws. Theories are comprised of facts, laws, and verifiable evidence.

 

[StanJ]

As I said earlier, you dont understand what a scientific theory is. You need science 101 knowledge.

I don't understand why you would even started discussion and cop out. Is it too tenuous for you?

 

[lesliedellow]

Is this an example of how you do scientific research? I know for a fact that the information is out there because I read it of course I was hoping that you would be genuous enough to do the same thing. I'm sure you know the old saying about how you can only 'lead' a horse to water...?

You read it on some nonsensical creationist website, and now you cannot even remember which of those purveyors of hokum you got it from.

 

[StanJ]

The problem StanJ is that you don't have a clue what a scientific theory is. There are no proofs in science, proofs are unique to mathematics. A scientific theory is the highest order of understanding of achievable. Theories are never proven nor do they becomes laws. Theories are comprised of facts, laws, and verifiable evidence.

Well then that probably explain why mathematics have been able to refute evolution.

I guess it also explains why it is never been directly observed from its beginning and cannot be falsified. It's far too inexact.

 

[RickG]

Is this an example of how you do scientific research? I know for a fact that the information is out there because I read it of course I was hoping that you would be genuous enough to do the same thing. I'm sure you know the old saying about how you can only 'lead' a horse to water...?

And you appear to be the horse. Making baseless claims about things you haven't a clue about. What is wrong with Vostok?

 

[StanJ]

You read it on some nonsensical creationist website, and now you cannot even remember which of those purveyors of hokum you got it from.

Let me get this straight you're a calvinist who doesn't believe in the accuracy and literalness of Genesis 1? That must be some cognitive dissonance you're working with there?

 

[StanJ]

And you appear to be the horse. Making baseless claims about things you haven't a clue about. What is wrong with Vostok?

Asked and answered.

 

[lesliedellow]

Let me get this straight you're a calvinist who doesn't believe in the accuracy and literalness of Genesis 1? That must be some cognitive dissonance you're working with there?

None whatsoever.

 

[RickG]

Well then that probably explain why mathematics have been able to refute evolution.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). (Source: National Academy of Sciences)

 

[VirOptimus]

Well then that probably explain why mathematics have been able to refute evolution.
-snip-

No it hasnt. And it never could.

I think you know even less about math.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well then that probably explain why mathematics have been able to refute evolution.

Really? That's a novel idea. My degree is in mathematics, so perhaps you could explain?

 

[RickG]

Asked and answered.

You made the claim that Vostok has problems. Now you refuse to even name one of those problems.

 

[StanJ]

That is always the case. In order for something to be considered a scientific theory. it must, in principle, be falsifiable. But the longer it remains unfalsified, the more likely it is to be correct.

How rather convenient! So as creationism has been around 1000 times longer than Evolution, I guess we consider it to be correct?

 

[StanJ]

You made the claim that Vostok has problems. Now you refuse to even name one of those problems.

You also claim to be a scientist who did research on all these issues. Why is it you now refuse to acknowledge the issues with Vostok?

 

[RickG]

How rather convenient! So as creationism has been around 1000 times longer than Evolution, I guess we consider it to be correct?

Thread is about the apparent age of the earth, how about getting off evolution and getting back on topic. What problem is there with Vostok? Ice core chronologies go back 800 Ka.

 

[VirOptimus]

How rather convenient! So as creationism has been around 1000 times longer than Evolution, I guess we consider it to be correct?

This is wrong on so many levels. For starters, creationism isnt a scientific theory.

 

[StanJ]

Really? That's a novel idea. My degree is in mathematics, so perhaps you could explain?

Well then you should know all about it if that is your degree.

 

[lesliedellow]

How rather convenient! So as creationism has been around 1000 times longer than Evolution, I guess we consider it to be correct?

Unfortunately, it has been falsified.

 

[The Cadet]

I'm sure you are well aware of the issues with Vostok, but if not then I'm sure you can find a lot of them online.

Given that the Vostok ice cores are regularly used by scientists in the field of paleoclimatology and accepted there as a good temperature proxy spanning through hundreds of thousands of years... No, I'm not aware of the issues. What I am aware of, though, is that one of two things is necessarily the case here:

1. Countless peer-reviewed papers continuing to this day are based on data which is known to be wrong
2. Whatever source you're cribbing this from is spreading misinformation

What is your source? I don't know what your alleged problems are.

That's exactly my point... Why is it still a germ Theory when it's been proven, and why is evolution considered factual when it is still called a theory and hasn't been proven?

Because in science as in all empiricism, "proof" is an impossible standard. Throw a thousand people off a building and you can reach the tentative conclusion that humans probably can't fly. You won't know until you've thrown every person off that building, though. Now, it's very likely that humans can't fly based on that analysis, but you can't be sure. This is known as the problem of induction. All conclusions in science are tentative, and based on degrees of reasonable doubt. "Theory" is the highest rank an idea in science can attain.

Quite convenient for the scientists that formulated their own theories. Maybe those of you who push evolution and take a tip from Albert Einstein, when he wrote; "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Why pursue and believe in something that can never be proven right? There are just so many inconsistencies in this area.

Did schools in the US stop teaching the scientific method or something? Why pursue and believe in something that can never be proven right? Because that applies to literally everything. There is nothing we can empirically "prove" with 100% certainty, and outside of empiricism I'm not aware of any epistemology that can actually be said to work. Meanwhile, this thing that can never be proven right has revolutionized our society on every conceivable level, and allowed us to basically curb-stomp nature.