why we do not believe secular scientists

[USincognito]

... I prefer to be a skeptical cherry picker.

You're at least two of those three words.

 

[GooberJIL]

We can measure past events with equivalent certainty by analyzing evidence.

This is not true

Yes, it is. That's how science works.

Just because science does this does not make its conclusions true.

and is why new evidence demands that science constantly revise its conclusions.

Observations made at the time of the event aren't perfect at first either. They have to be revised to. That's part of all science.

You can't go back and revise an observation. If a method of observation is found to be faulty or inaccurate, then that data must be thrown out and can not be used to establish a scientific fact. For example, an earthquake happens and is recorded by a seismograph and that equipment is later found to be defective, those recorded results can not be used to determine the focus, magnitude, or epicenter of that event. Nor could they be revised.

This type of analysis assumes that if 'X' is true today, then it was true at all points in the past(IOW: universally).

Sure. Why would you believe otherwise?

Suppose that we only recorded rain fall for a single year(this would establish a scientific fact) in a given city, now could we go on to assume that every past year the exact same amount of rain fell in that certain city? Now on the following year we record an additional scientific fact and determine that it did not match our previous assumption suggested by a scientific fact. The fact wasn't wrong, but the assumption was. Now we could go on to assume that each year will contain the same differential or average rain fall. These assumptions would not be facts and because now we have establish so many years of rainfall facts we all know this to be inaccurate. The only fact that we've scientifically established is that the amount of annual rainfall is different each year. So how could we know as a scientific fact what the rainfall of any year was for that city that we do not have an observation for? We can not scientifically state for a fact what the rainfall was. Point being that with out an accurate scientific observation we can only speculate and 'best guess' what that rainfall rate might have been. So any conclusion about anything going on in prior years effected by rainfall would not be based on fact.

When we deal with scientific facts, new evidence only confirms those facts. A scientific conclusion is not always arrived at only based on scientifically confirmed facts.

Humor us, what else would it be based on?

Conclusions are often arrived at based on assumptions, suppositions, hypothesis, theories. etc. see above example.

 

[GooberJIL]

You act as though incorporating new data is a bad thing (it isn't), and that science "constantly" changes (it doesn't).

My point is that the universal theory should not be used as if it establishes scientific facts; not that incorporating new data is a bad thing. I agree with you that it isn't a bad thing. Science is constantly being changed as we accumulate new data and better means of observations. This also forces changes in its conclusions.

The age of the Earth has been consistent for about 50 years, Darwin's evolutionary theory only had to be modified to develop the modern synthesis, we know, from the 1987 supernova that the speed of light hasn't changed in 170,000+ years and we know from ice core data that the atmosphere has remained pretty much the same for at least 400,000 years.

You are presenting conclusions that are not based on scientific facts as facts. Einstein's theory of relativity states that the speed of light is relative to the observer an does change and is effected by gravity and densities; but it is treated as a constant. This is why it is still treated as a theory and not a law.

I'm glad you brought up ice cores, the US WWII plane buried in ice on Greenland clearly debunks the conclusion that we can make an accurate correlation that 'x' number of rings = 'x' number of years, because going by the ring theory that plane had hundreds or thousands of years worth of ice on top of it. (I forget the exact #)

Even the reassignment of Pluto was the result of newly discoveried Kueiper objects, not a change in the nature of Pluto itself.

You're right, it did not change the nature of Pluto itself, but it did change the conclusion. (that is still being debated)

I don't know where you got that last sentence from. Can you cite a specific exampe of a scientific conclusion arrived at based on something other than scientific facts?

see above example using rainfall.

 

[Dannager]

Just because science does this does not make its conclusions true.

You're right. Our observations, despite being flawless, could be completely wrong if for some reason the universal laws we experience today were not the same a few thousand years ago, and beyond that didn't leave any evidence of changing. Sure, if God decided to be purposefully deceptive and pull the most mammoth switcheroo ever conceived on us, yeah, we could be wrong. But I prefer not to believe that God would do such a thing. I believe that God gave us the ability to observe and reason for a purpose. I believe that God intended us to be able to marvel at the world around us and study its intricacies.

You can't go back and revise an observation. If a method of observation is found to be faulty or inaccurate, then that data must be thrown out and can not be used to establish a scientific fact.

Which means you get a new observation based on the better method.

For example, an earthquake happens and is recorded by a seismograph and that equipment is later found to be defective, those recorded results can not be used to determine the focus, magnitude, or epicenter of that event. Nor could they be revised.

You're certainly right. But seismologists could then go to the epicenter of the quake and take measurements of tectonic shifting in the surrounding area to determine the magnitude of the quake. Because, y'know, earthquakes leave evidence.

Suppose that we only recorded rain fall for a single year(this would establish a scientific fact) in a given city, now could we go on to assume that every past year the exact same amount of rain fell in that certain city?

Certainly not.

Now on the following year we record an additional scientific fact and determine that it did not match our previous assumption suggested by a scientific fact. The fact wasn't wrong, but the assumption was.

What, that we had to draw conclusions based on the available data? Sure.

Now we could go on to assume that each year will contain the same differential or average rain fall. These assumptions would not be facts and because now we have establish so many years of rainfall facts we all know this to be inaccurate.

Which would cause us to alter our predictions.

The only fact that we've scientifically established is that the amount of annual rainfall is different each year. So how could we know as a scientific fact what the rainfall of any year was for that city that we do not have an observation for?

Hmmm, plant growth would be a good place to start. Water table increases would also help. Local lake levels would give an indication, as would fauna strength. As much as you might not like it, everything leaves evidence. It's just a matter of having equipment capable of observing it.

We can not scientifically state for a fact what the rainfall was.

I'm sure that we could, given enough study. I'm also sure that you're nowhere near qualified enough to make a claim like that.

Point being that with out an accurate scientific observation we can only speculate and 'best guess' what that rainfall rate might have been.

Yes, without an accurate scientific observation. Fortunately, you can still make accurate scientific observations after the fact.

So any conclusion about anything going on in prior years effected by rainfall would not be based on fact.

Sure it would, if you actually collected proper evidence. You seem to want to ignore that possibility for some reason, though.

Conclusions are often arrived at based on assumptions, suppositions, hypothesis, theories. etc. see above example.

No, conclusions are arrived at via data. They qualify theories, validate hypotheses, reinforce suppositions and fine-tune assumptions.

But you don't like what that would mean for your beliefs, so you can't let yourself acknowledge it.

 

[Dannager]

You are presenting conclusions that are not based on scientific facts as facts. Einstein's theory of relativity states that the speed of light is relative to the observer an does change and is effected by gravity and densities; but it is treated as a constant. This is why it is still treated as a theory and not a law.

Please, please don't be yet another creationist who doesn't understand what a theory is and what a law is. Do some reading up on them, please.

 

[notto]

I'm glad you brought up ice cores, the US WWII plane buried in ice on Greenland clearly debunks the conclusion that we can make an accurate correlation that 'x' number of rings = 'x' number of years, because going by the ring theory that plane had hundreds or thousands of years worth of ice on top of it. (I forget the exact #)

This is a misstatement of how they determine annual layers. It is NOT done by simply counting 'rings'. It is done by analyzing the chemical composition and structure of the ice and identifying seasonal patterns. Seasonal patterns we can still see being created today.

The location of the planes that were found was NOT the same as where ice cores are taken and is know to have a much different seasonal snow pattern.

Trying to suggest that the amount of snow and ice on top of the planes has any bearing on how ice core analysis is done is a demonstration of intellectual dishonesty by whoever you are getting your information from.

You have been lied to and you are passing on bad information.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

 

[archaeologist]

But they clearly describe the best interpretation of the results, i.e. two floods one after the other (with a period of respite in between, presumably), and 450,000 years ago, not 4,000 years ago. So you don't have any right to take part of their interpretation (there was massive flooding) while rejecting part (... from two floods a long long time ago), unless you can clearly show that the interpretation of two floods is wrong based on their data. If you don't accept their detailed analysis, not having taken so much as a look at their raw observations, why should you accept anything of their analysis at all?

actually we can, or really, they are taking a bit of the Bible , changing the date and claiming to have dicsovered something, theologians have known about for millenia.

my point being is that whensecular scientists finds evidence, what ever it may be, they do not credit God or the Bible but attribute it to some fairy tale that has no hope of being verified.

one cannot trusat secular scientists,or their methods, theories for they are not providing the truth of what took place.

evidence is there, pointing to God and what He said but it is the unbelievers who look the other way.

 

[archaeologist]

here is another good article on why we cannot trust secular scientists:

Differences in skull features are related to genetics, and genetic variation depends on how much mixing occurs with other populations. “The main problem with the paper is that it takes some assumptions from genetics papers of 10 to 15 years ago that we now know are wrong,” Hawks said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070718/sc_livescience/scientisthumanoriginimpossibletopinpoint

also:

Manica and colleagues took multiple measurements of more than 4,500 male fossil skulls from 105 populations around the globe. They combined the results with data from studies of global genetic variations in humans, finding that both genetic and skull variability decreased with distance from Africa. So populations in southeastern Africa held the highest variability compared with populations in other countries.

skull measurements??/ that is really getting desperate. it certainly doesn't prove migration. just proves that secular scientists will use anything to maintain their theories.

 

[notto]

So you assume, no one was there to make and record a scientific observation for us to factually know. In fact Creationism demands that this was not always so.

Of course creationism demands this. It is pseudoscience and has determined its conclusions and must not accept any evidence to the contrary.

As far as scientific observation, we can certainly know facts about the past. There is a history of evidence that is available to us many places. We analyze that evidence in the same way we would analyze any evidence. We assume that the chemical reactions that happen today happened yesterday and the day before. We assume (and rightfully so) that the speed of light today is the same as yesterday and we assume that unless somebody can provide some evidence to the contrary, that atoms decayed, that animals died, and that volcanoes erupted yesterday, just like they do today.

Suggesting that we can't use this method to learn about the past is like saying we can't use this method to learn about the present.

 

[notto]

it certainly doesn't prove migration.

So you claim. Can you actually demonstrate it? It certainly can be used as evidence for a hypothesis. Your use of the word 'prove' demonstrates you don't understand the language of science or the nature of scientific inquiry. Suggesting that a disagreement means that we should abandon science demonstrates that you don't understand the actual work of scientists. Refinement and controversy (you know, PEER REVIEW) is an integral part of science. Of course creationists wouldn't understand this. They won't accept evidence contrary to their conclusions and they avoid real peer review of those that would disagree with them like the plague.

You saying that something is bad science doesn't carry much weight because you have demonstrated a dismal understanding of science.

It is clear that you won't accept or listen to evidence contrary to your point of view so it is kind of funny to see you trying to persuade us that you are issuing some objective judgment on the work of these scientists.

Can we go back and talk about where that chalk came from or do you just plan on spamming new topics into the thread without addressing the criticism of your unsupported claims?

 

[metherion]

I'm curious. How long does something have to be in the past before measurements of it become unreliable?

I'll need both a number and a unit, by the way.

Metherion

 

[notto]

I'm curious. How long does something have to be in the past before measurements of it become unreliable?

I'll need both a number and a unit, by the way.

Metherion

I'd say yesterday but that answer might be different tomorrow.
(it is a silly claim isn't it).

 

[archaeologist]

i am beginning to laugh at secular science as it poses no real threat to theology. it just does not understand issues which are over its head.

how can measuring skulls determine where God dispersed mankind?

such conclusions and failure to rebut properly just makes my point.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

i am beginning to laugh at secular science as it poses no real threat to theology. it just does not understand issues which are over its head.

how can measuring skulls determine where God dispersed mankind?

such conclusions and failure to rebut properly just makes my point.

So, when you laugh at "secular science", what is it - approximately - that you are laughing at?

 

[USincognito]

My point is that the universal theory should not be used as if it establishes scientific facts; not that incorporating new data is a bad thing. I agree with you that it isn't a bad thing. Science is constantly being changed as we accumulate new data and better means of observations. This also forces changes in its conclusions.

Great. We agree. Now, from general statements, can you cite any conclusion derived from scientific observations in the last say, 50 years, that was overturned because of contadictory data, not adjusted (as with Pluto) because of complimentary data.

It's great to make these broad pronouncements about how science has flip-flopped "all the time", it seems to be a lot harder to cite specific examples of an actual flip-flop vs. a refinement as I tried to note in the paragraph you quote below.

Time to call of fold bud.

You are presenting conclusions that are not based on scientific facts as facts.

I'm sorry, but no. Everything I cited was a conclusion based on scientific facts derived by the scientific method that cannot be denied by anyone who doesn't have an agenda or without appealing to logical fallacies.

Einstein's theory of relativity states that the speed of light is relative to the observer an does change and is effected by gravity and densities; but it is treated as a constant. This is why it is still treated as a theory and not a law.

See Dannager's response, and keep this addenda in mind. Einstein's theory on Relativity was well known by the 1920s. The 1987 supernova I referenced occured 60 years later. Are you suggesting that astronomers and astrophysicists in 1987 were too stupid and ignorant not to take Relativity into account when they made their observations and calculations about the speed of light being constant while you somehow figured it out?

I'm glad you brought up ice cores, the US WWII plane buried in ice on Greenland clearly debunks the conclusion that we can make an accurate correlation that 'x' number of rings = 'x' number of years, because going by the ring theory that plane had hundreds or thousands of years worth of ice on top of it. (I forget the exact #)

Again, like Dannager, notto has already addressed the technical issues, but let me keep this simple and specific to the planes in Greenland - you do know there's a difference between "feet of snow" and "ice layers" right?

You're right, it did not change the nature of Pluto itself, but it did change the conclusion. (that is still being debated)

Only outside a few members of the astronomical community. But thank you for acceding that Pluto (and Charon since it's presence is important) didn't somehow change regarding the laws of physics or chemistry, but was reclassified, as I noted above, due to more information, not a realization that the information was incorrect.

see above example using rainfall.

Rainfall isn't analagous to ice layers as notto pointed out. But as long as you're trying to make the case, let's bring this back to the OP.

Chalk is known to form at a certain rate because the diatoms that form it die, settle to the bottom of bodies of water and accrete at known rates. If you're suggesting things would have been different in the past, please present your math showing how the numerous physical properties governing chalk formation could have been different like water having a different specific gravity or density, the diatoms behaving differently in a hydrodynamic environment or gravity being stronger in the past...

...don't forget that every argument you put forth will present a number of other problems, but for now we can stick just to chalk formation since it's germane to the OP.

 

[USincognito]

i am beginning to laugh at secular science as it poses no real threat to theology.

It doesn't unless your particular theology is wedded to a literalist interpretation of Gen. 1-11, and even then the vast majority of it shouldn't incur as much disdain as you are pathetically trying to heap upon it. I'd also note that children often laugh when mommy and daddy use words they don't know to discuss issues they don't understand. That's understandable...

it just does not understand issues which are over its head.

Seriously. I asked you this before. What is it like to be born without a sense of irony?

 

[shernren]

Shern,
I am cherry picking.
It is just that, for me, there is plenty of room to move on theories about events that took place eons ago. As far as I know maybe there were 5 BWEs or 500 BWEs, plus a few big meteor events, who really knows? That still leaves room for the Genesis flood. (GBWE)

So you agree that the scientists haven't actually found evidence for the Genesis Flood, and that your position on the Genesis Flood isn't made any sounder by their findings, right?

You are presenting conclusions that are not based on scientific facts as facts. Einstein's theory of relativity states that the speed of light is relative to the observer an does change and is effected by gravity and densities; but it is treated as a constant. This is why it is still treated as a theory and not a law.

Umm, no.

Einstein's theory of special relativity states that the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant with respect to observers in an inertial frame.
Maxwell's equations state that the speed of light in a medium is less than its speed in a vacuum because the permittivity and permeability of the material are different from that of free space.
Einstein's theory of general relativity states that light's paths are affected by gravity as they might be affected by observation under acceleration, not in an inertial frame.

There is no contradiction between any of them and the only reason they aren't called "laws" is because nowadays people call "theories" what people once called "laws". (I suppose scientists are more modest now - and they've moved away from the theology of considering science God's laws, in general.) If you want to learn about them, feel free to ask me; but don't make big statements about things you know little about!

 

[shernren]

I'm curious. How long does something have to be in the past before measurements of it become unreliable?

I'll need both a number and a unit, by the way.

Metherion

1.00 CCUOM (creationist-convenient unit of measurement).

 

[mythbuster]

"So you agree that the scientists haven't actually found evidence for the Genesis Flood, and that your position on the Genesis Flood isn't made any sounder by their findings, right?"

No I don't agree. In the OP there is a mention of evidence of some giant flood action. For all I know this may be evidence of the Genesis Flood. And then my position is sounder.

But I don't need outside professional help for evidence of the the Genesis Flood. Everywhere I look I see evidence of massive sedimentary (?) action. For example at some point the San Gabriel Mountains behind my house were under water because there are lots and lots of sea shells in layers. Just like at the beach! Everywhere I look are sediments laid down by water.


It is exactly the same situation for design in nature. I see design everywhere. But if some scientist/person describes the sonar technology of a bat and then goes on to describe how that sonar technonlgy exists through random mutation and natural selection (RMNS) process I accept the technology part and reject the RMNS part.

So the evidence of the science I accept e.g., technology in biology, flood action in geology. This just solidifies my position vis-a-vis God's creation and the Genesis Flood. The interpretation of the evidence (by secular scientists as Archeologist likes to call them) I choose to criticize.

 

[GooberJIL]

No, conclusions are arrived at via data. They qualify theories, validate hypotheses, reinforce suppositions and fine-tune assumptions.

IOW: most of what is passed off as scientific fact is not fact, but is only a best guess. Thank you for validating my point.