What the?? No way!!!

[bunced]

No, because if Science was partial then it would cease to be science because then it would be cherry picking facts. Science doesn't look to "prove" stuff, it looks to understand the world based on the evidence around us!

Red Shift is demonstratable on Earth, as I'm sure a cursory glance at a science textbook should have told you - that's why sounds are higher as they come towards you and lower as they move away from you.

We know our understanding of the nature of Isotopes is correct because it is provable using experiment, as I said!

Now, if you believe in a particular world view, that is fine - but it cannot count as science. The two are different by nature

 

[Carey]

No, because if Science was partial then it would cease to be science because then it would be cherry picking facts. Science doesn't look to "prove" stuff, it looks to understand the world based on the evidence around us!

Red Shift is demonstratable on Earth, as I'm sure a cursory glance at a science textbook should have told you - that's why sounds are higher as they come towards you and lower as they move away from you.

We know our understanding of the nature of Isotopes is correct because it is provable using experiment, as I said!

Now, if you believe in a particular world view, that is fine - but it cannot count as science. The two are different by nature

Now if the Isotope and res shift ex[eriments are accurate what experiments are the scientists refuting the accuracy of both red sgift and Isotopes using.

What experoment did Morehai use that Albert did not
on Dark matter??

 

[IFG1P315]

bunced,

You and I agree about some things, which is good. You describe science as understanding the world around us based on evidence, which I agree with and support. You say science is impartial, and I say as long as that science meets the first description than yes.

We disagree about some things as well. Scientists are not by nature impartial, few people are. And many tend to step outside of operational science into historical science. You displayed this tendency yourself when you applied operational evidence (red shift) to historical explanations (age of the universe). Add into this that many scientists automatically discount any answer that does not fit their worldview, and we suddenly have a big mess of partiality.

The example C-14 dating as applied to historical science relies on a few assumptions. The principle of these being the initial amount present.

Think of it like this: I walk into my bathroom and find the tub half full. The tap is dripping. I do an experiment that determines water is dripping at the rate of 1 half-liter every 15 minutes. I naturally assume this must the way the tub filled so I use it to determine how long the tub has been filling. ( We will exclude the fact that I have taken the existence of the tub and the water and the faucet for granted since they are not applicable to the example, but I mention them because they do apply to the analogy.)

What I unfortunately did not know is that my wife filled the tub part way before she left for a run so she could soak her feet.

While this example is somewhat simplistic, it gets at the issue. I can determine the rate of drip. But unless I know, what I don't know, or at least consider there must be something I don't know, there is no way for me to accurately determine how long the tub has been filling.

 

[Carey]

Thanks IFG1P315

Very good analogy


quote : The example C-14 dating as applied to historical science relies on a few assumptions. The principle of these being the initial amount present.

Think of it like this: I walk into my bathroom and find the tub half full. The tap is dripping. I do an experiment that determines water is dripping at the rate of 1 half-liter every 15 minutes. I naturally assume this must the way the tub filled so I use it to determine how long the tub has been filling. ( We will exclude the fact that I have taken the existence of the tub and the water and the faucet for granted since they are not applicable to the example, but I mention them because they do apply to the metaphor.)

What I unfortunately did not know is that my wife filled the tub part way before she left for a run so she could soak her feet.

While this example is somewhat simplistic, it gets at the issue. I can determine the rate of drip. But unless I know, what I don't know, or at least consider there must be something I don't know, there is no way for me to accurately determine how long the tub has been filling.