Login

Join for Free!
114405 members


What's bad science? Read here

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby biotchr » Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:17 pm

I never said the earth was created 6000 years or that it is not worth debating. My main contention is that dating methods carry with them a bias that naturalistic mechanisms on behalf of a naturalistic "power" have put us here, which is hardly scientific but more philosophical/religious. It is unfortunate that our biology books tell our students that the universe is 20 billion years old and earth 4.6 billion. This is a lie, or at least when said in a factual manner it is a lie. So one can keep debating ages all one wants but when one says that something is such and such age then that makes that "one" a liar or at least in danger of being a liar.
biotchr
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:28 am

Postby mith » Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:45 pm

Can you be more specific in stating where the bias is? I mean, i think the radioactive decay of substances is as dry and cut as you can get...

Besides, isn't science supposed to be naturalistic, empirical and observable?
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby biotchr » Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:46 pm

Data must be interpreted. Depending upon one's mindset on the "creator" (Nature in evolution and God in creation), data takes on a whole different meaning. Do you think when scientists look at data resulting from gravity or atoms that their thoughts on a "creator" enter into play? The theory of evolution takes science into territory that the scientific method is supposed to safeguard.
biotchr
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:28 am


Postby mith » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:34 am

I don't see how this has to do with radioisotope dating, there's really not that much interpretation, one isotope decays into another....the concentrations determine the age.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby biotchr » Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:09 am

It has alot to do with dating, or interpreting transitions, or etc.... The models used in explanation of these supposed events are full of bias on both sides. And it all goes back to that creative "force" whatever you want to call it, even if you want to call it SOMETHING. The SOMETHING for creationists is their version of God which fails the scientific method. The SOMETHING for evolution is their version of a Creator such as the environment or "Nature". Science is not allowed in this arena in either case.
biotchr
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:28 am

Postby AstusAleator » Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:43 am

I think you've had some very bad experiences with dogmatic theo-evolutionists. Science as a practice MUST remain objective and not allow biases or unrecognized assumptions. In order for a scientist to achieve credibility in the scientific community he or she must demonstrate that objectivity in their published works. Believe it or not, evolution is not an attempt to disprove creation, nor is it an attempt to prove some other supernatural force that is directing events on earth.
Some athiests or deists use evolution as a tool to attack more fundamental religious beliefs, and that is tragic. Please do not judge the science of evolution by the actions and statements of those people.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby alextemplet » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:39 am

You're right, biotchr. Radiometric dating is a fallacy, and the entire universe (including distant starlight) was created to appear billions of years old just because God likes to trick us. For that matter, when I look at microorganisms in a microscope, they don't exist, either. God's just tricking me again. And there's no sun, either. It's another one of God's tricks. For that matter, I don't exist. God just tricked me into thinking that I do.

Now I admit science isn't perfect, but if you claim that anything that considers only naturalistic possibilities to be non-science because it rejects the possibility that God has tricked us, then we can draw some pretty absurd conclusions. As for the earth, it is 4.6 billion years old. End of story. If you want to challenge this with facts, then by all means do so. But please don't reject it just because God might have tricked us.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby biotchr » Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:44 am

alextemplet wrote:You're right, biotchr. Radiometric dating is a fallacy, and the entire universe (including distant starlight) was created to appear billions of years old just because God likes to trick us. For that matter, when I look at microorganisms in a microscope, they don't exist, either. God's just tricking me again. And there's no sun, either. It's another one of God's tricks. For that matter, I don't exist. God just tricked me into thinking that I do.

Now I admit science isn't perfect, but if you claim that anything that considers only naturalistic possibilities to be non-science because it rejects the possibility that God has tricked us, then we can draw some pretty absurd conclusions. As for the earth, it is 4.6 billion years old. End of story. If you want to challenge this with facts, then by all means do so. But please don't reject it just because God might have tricked us.

Why would you be "tricked"? Your opinion of trickery results from your feelings about God. Makes me wonder what kind of "god" your choosing. I do not call it trickery, I call it omnipotence.

We do NOT know how old the earth is. Saying the earth is 4.5 billion years old puts one in jeopardy of being a liar. Now being wrong about natural phenomena is not necessarily bad, scientists stick their neck out all the time. I respect the speculative and tentative nature of science but not when it comes to origins of life and the species. I am more interested in the TRUTH. By the way there are no "facts to challenge" when looking at the age of the earth. We do NOT know. By the way it sounds like you believe in a "creator" that takes millions of years to create. I tend to believe in a creator that can create in moments. We both are biased because we are dealing with SOMETHING outside the arena of science. Our belief in origins of life and the species in all the various facets including the age of the earth, transitions, and macro. vs. micro. is directly dependent upon what we think of the "creator". This is the result of hypotheses passing through the test of science when they should fail. Not in my case, I have no "scientific" hypotheses concerning where I came from.
biotchr
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:28 am

Postby AstusAleator » Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:04 am

All science, not just TOE, has to assume the absence of metaphysical or supernatural causality. Name a law, theory, or hypothesis that doesn't make that assumption.

You're assuming that everyone believes in some sort of creator, and that those beliefs somehow matter to science.

Some people believe(ed) the world sits on the back of a giant turtle. Some people believe(ed) that people simply crawled out of holes in the ground.

I honestly think that you're arguing so fiercely simply because you cannot reconcile your personal beliefs and the TOE. You and millions of people like you feel threatened by what science has revealed and seeks to investigate further.

If accepting a scientific theory as possible would destroy your God, then I have to question the strength of your faith to begin with.

Why do you believe what you believe? Most likely it's because of what the people around you have told you, and the words that might be written in a particular book or aged manuscript. Why not explore the world you live in and seek to define your beliefs based upon what you learn.
That may sound like some hippy mumbo-jumbo, but if there is some spirit or god out there, it didn't write a book, at least not the book you're thinking of.
I think if god was to write any book it would probably be the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. Ok, I'm just getting silly now.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby biotchr » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:36 pm

AstusAleator wrote:All science, not just TOE, has to assume the absence of metaphysical or supernatural causality. Name a law, theory, or hypothesis that doesn't make that assumption.

You're assuming that everyone believes in some sort of creator, and that those beliefs somehow matter to science.

Some people believe(ed) the world sits on the back of a giant turtle. Some people believe(ed) that people simply crawled out of holes in the ground.

I honestly think that you're arguing so fiercely simply because you cannot reconcile your personal beliefs and the TOE. You and millions of people like you feel threatened by what science has revealed and seeks to investigate further.

If accepting a scientific theory as possible would destroy your God, then I have to question the strength of your faith to begin with.

Why do you believe what you believe? Most likely it's because of what the people around you have told you, and the words that might be written in a particular book or aged manuscript. Why not explore the world you live in and seek to define your beliefs based upon what you learn.
That may sound like some hippy mumbo-jumbo, but if there is some spirit or god out there, it didn't write a book, at least not the book you're thinking of.
I think if god was to write any book it would probably be the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. Ok, I'm just getting silly now.


1. Evolution
2. Everyone DOES believe in a creator. That is not an assumption. The creator is named different things including "breeder", "environment", and "Nature", however, it is there. SOMETHING is demanded to be there.
3. As for the giant turtle, well, they believed what they wanted, you do to.
4. Evolution does not challenge my belief in God because it is not a valid scientific theory due to its failure in the scientific method. I do not feel threatened by the likes of evolution, I am more concerned about the future of our society and others as a result of evolutionary thinking penetrating our psyche. After all, speaking sociologically, where we think we came from DOES determine the way we act. I am a school teacher so I can see first-hand the actions of someone who comes from the ghetto. The TOE is the ghetto version of our history, so how do you think we as a society will act as a result. That last one is easy to answer, just look around.
5. My faith in God relies on historical evidences and personal experiences. Most people's faith in evolution stems from their faith in scientists. The scientist's faith in the TOE is bound in the speculative and tentative nature of science, which is nothing more or less that religious faith when science sets out to study origins. Having faith ("tentativeness") the insides of an atom look like the contemporary model is different than having faith in a breeder that supposedly creates new life forms by breeding existing ones. I think the atom is best described the way we currently think, but if it is wrong, that is no big deal. If an orgins possibility labeled as "scientifically" valid is wrong, well it has many more ramifications.
biotchr
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:28 am

Postby mith » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:19 pm

So why do you think so many scientists believe in evolution? is it a big conspiracy?
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby alextemplet » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:46 pm

biotchr:

Why would you be "tricked"? Your opinion of trickery results from your feelings about God. Makes me wonder what kind of "god" your choosing. I do not call it trickery, I call it omnipotence.


No, this has nothing to do with my feelings about God. The earth really does appear to be 4.6 billion years old. To say, as you have, that God just created it to appear older than it is, is the same as saying God has tricked us. What kind of God do you believe in?

I am more interested in the TRUTH. By the way there are no "facts to challenge" when looking at the age of the earth. We do NOT know.


If there are no facts to challenge it, then it would certainly seem to be as true as we can discern it to be. And yes we do know, through radiometric dating. Please present a legitimate scientific objection, not your opinion about God, if you wish to challenge it.

By the way it sounds like you believe in a "creator" that takes millions of years to create. I tend to believe in a creator that can create in moments. We both are biased because we are dealing with SOMETHING outside the arena of science. Our belief in origins of life and the species in all the various facets including the age of the earth, transitions, and macro. vs. micro. is directly dependent upon what we think of the "creator".


I believe in a God who can create in any manner he chooses. We know, through science, that evolution occurred, so obviously God chose to create in that manner. Why? I don't know, ask God. The only part of that that's biased by my opinions about God is the part about God being here to get the evolutionary process started. The rest is just science.

You can't claim that evolution isn't science just by stating your religious beliefs, which is all you have done so far. Please present a scientific objection.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron