Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution v Creation

Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:55:48 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?

First of all, you really don't want to get your scientific information from kent hovind. He really doesnt know anything about science.
Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 7:33:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:55:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?

First of all, you really don't want to get your scientific information from kent hovind. He really doesnt know anything about science.

Exactly. I don't want to take what Hovind says for granted. The thing is - I can't afford to take ANYONE's word at face value. I instinctively take Evolution and an old Earth for granted, but I'm wary of trusting what I've heard as the truth. I want to learn for myself, but don't know where to get info. from.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 8:33:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?

I need an example of a tree standing in millions of years of strata, that strata would have had to be dated for this to be known. Often we find a layer from a certain time that is very large because there was a massive deposit.

Trees can stay upright for decades after death and some trees that have been submerged can keep on living. For example in the Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee after many trees are still growing even after they were submerged in an earthquake in 1812.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://ncse.com...
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com...

I heard that Hovind has a crackpot theory of a layer of water in the sky that was there for thousands of years and fell down as part of the flood. The first problem is that this had to be in gaseous forum or else it will fall to the ground because of gravity. There can only be so much water gas in the sky before it forms into rain so it is impossible for such a layer of water to remain in the sky for long.

Also an ocean's worth of water would be very heavy and would kill all life on earth in the way that divers who go too low into the ocean are crushed by the pressure. Also think about a really cloudy day and how dark it was. All that water gas in the sky would have formed so many clouds that it would have been extremely dark and would block out most of the light of the sun killing all life.

The examples of bad dating methods are usually dating methods that are misused. For example, using radiometric dating to date something really recent and coming up with millions of years, when radiometric dating is only accurate for very old things because of its very slow level of decay.

In actual tests of our dating methods we have found multiple techniques arriving at the same dates which is statistically unlikely if they were false.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 9:01:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 7:33:17 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:55:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?

First of all, you really don't want to get your scientific information from kent hovind. He really doesnt know anything about science.


Exactly. I don't want to take what Hovind says for granted. The thing is - I can't afford to take ANYONE's word at face value. I instinctively take Evolution and an old Earth for granted, but I'm wary of trusting what I've heard as the truth. I want to learn for myself, but don't know where to get info. from.

Kent has had his arguments refuted so many times. Even creationists are refuting him at this point:
http://creation.com...
Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 10:56:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 8:33:16 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?

I need an example of a tree standing in millions of years of strata, that strata would have had to be dated for this to be known. Often we find a layer from a certain time that is very large because there was a massive deposit.

Trees can stay upright for decades after death and some trees that have been submerged can keep on living. For example in the Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee after many trees are still growing even after they were submerged in an earthquake in 1812.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://ncse.com...
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com...

I heard that Hovind has a crackpot theory of a layer of water in the sky that was there for thousands of years and fell down as part of the flood. The first problem is that this had to be in gaseous forum or else it will fall to the ground because of gravity. There can only be so much water gas in the sky before it forms into rain so it is impossible for such a layer of water to remain in the sky for long.

Also an ocean's worth of water would be very heavy and would kill all life on earth in the way that divers who go too low into the ocean are crushed by the pressure. Also think about a really cloudy day and how dark it was. All that water gas in the sky would have formed so many clouds that it would have been extremely dark and would block out most of the light of the sun killing all life.

The examples of bad dating methods are usually dating methods that are misused. For example, using radiometric dating to date something really recent and coming up with millions of years, when radiometric dating is only accurate for very old things because of its very slow level of decay.

In actual tests of our dating methods we have found multiple techniques arriving at the same dates which is statistically unlikely if they were false.

This is exactly the kind of thing I mean - I need to find out whether such claims are credible. Eg - Hovind says there are trees upright between "millions of years" of history. I don't know where to look for an unbiased source to enlighten me as to its truth. Dating methods - as a layman, and a man lacking scientific knowledge, how do I know who and what info. to trust? I don't know what sites to access.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 12:26:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 10:56:44 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
This is exactly the kind of thing I mean - I need to find out whether such claims are credible. Eg - Hovind says there are trees upright between "millions of years" of history. I don't know where to look for an unbiased source to enlighten me as to its truth. Dating methods - as a layman, and a man lacking scientific knowledge, how do I know who and what info. to trust? I don't know what sites to access.

Wikipedia is actually a very good source for an introduction to most topics, and even an in-depth discussion of many, including scientific ones. Like most encyclopedias, it's written for the lay person by experts in various fields who donate their time to creating and editing articles. Its articles are based on sources that are cited, so you can look them up yourself, a very important hallmark of credible publication.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 1:31:23 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Welcome, Air.

I would like to acknowledge the honesty and courage with which you have made this statement.

By way of disclosure, I was educated and worked as a research scientist (though these days I'm more of a consultant, writer and musician.) My field is not geology nor any earth science, but having worked in science research, education, communication, administration and consulting I well appreciate the problem you face. Here's my take, which you are welcome to question or dispute.

Unless you are a geologist, biologist or similar, you will not have direct evidence on matters like the age of the earth and the origin of species nor the complete set of tools to needed to analyse and verify it anyway. You only have indirect evidence -- that is, evidence compiled from the behaviour and methods of professionals who themselves compile and analyse evidence.

The question then is how trustworthy are the professionals, and many people decide that based on how they feel: advice given by polite, honest-seeming people like themselves, with apparently distinguished credentials, speaking in language they understand and trust, tends to be trusted more than other advice.

Unfortunately, all of that can be and is manipulated by media communications. That's how advertising and public relations work. So it's no assurance of fairness, accuracy or reliability at all.

What then is the alternative?

I believe the more reliable alternative -- in fact the only alternative I believe viable -- is to understand the history, philosophy and methods of science well enough that you can see which groups are adhering to their values, methods and accountabilities, and which aren't. In particular, you need to be able to discern for yourself the difference between science, pseudoscience (sounds like science but isn't), and antiscience (a conspiracy theory that some science fields are incompetent, corrupt or fraudulent), and understand the evidence that would validate and verify each position.

There are several members here, myself included, who can walk you through those positions, and how they can be validated and verified by any ordinary person with a high school education, using nothing more than the Internet. It's hard work and can't be resolved in a single post, but it's doable.

Should you wish to explore that approach, I would be happy to help you do so, without telling you what to think (though I may tell you what I think and why I think it.) I suspect that several other members would be glad to assist too.

Or you may prefer to roll up the sleeves and get into the evidence of radiometry, fossils, speciation, mutation, selection, epigenetics, information theory... but I can attest from having watching those conversations that they can circle and swirl with claim and counterclaim and often miss the fundamentals of what constitutes scientific evidence, how an hypothesis forms, and what validates or falsifies it. So while you could go that way, you may end up wanting to come back to the fundamentals anyway. :D

It can also help to understand why this fight is occurring now, where it is occurring, and what's at stake. That way you can see the agendas more clearly at play. That relates to the history of religion and society, and not just the history of science. I'd be happy to help with that too. :D

Please poke if any of these are of interest.
Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 11:00:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 8:33:16 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?

I need an example of a tree standing in millions of years of strata, that strata would have had to be dated for this to be known. Often we find a layer from a certain time that is very large because there was a massive deposit.

Trees can stay upright for decades after death and some trees that have been submerged can keep on living. For example in the Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee after many trees are still growing even after they were submerged in an earthquake in 1812.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://ncse.com...
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com...

I heard that Hovind has a crackpot theory of a layer of water in the sky that was there for thousands of years and fell down as part of the flood. The first problem is that this had to be in gaseous forum or else it will fall to the ground because of gravity. There can only be so much water gas in the sky before it forms into rain so it is impossible for such a layer of water to remain in the sky for long.

Also an ocean's worth of water would be very heavy and would kill all life on earth in the way that divers who go too low into the ocean are crushed by the pressure. Also think about a really cloudy day and how dark it was. All that water gas in the sky would have formed so many clouds that it would have been extremely dark and would block out most of the light of the sun killing all life.

The examples of bad dating methods are usually dating methods that are misused. For example, using radiometric dating to date something really recent and coming up with millions of years, when radiometric dating is only accurate for very old things because of its very slow level of decay.

In actual tests of our dating methods we have found multiple techniques arriving at the same dates which is statistically unlikely if they were false.

I instinctively agree with you, but I don't know if I'm credulously believing what scientists have told me. Hovind has some seemingly wild ideas and one scientific method he rails against is dating methods, saying they're bogus. It seems crazy, but I want to avoid taking conventionally believed ideas for granted aswell. Eg - what is the truth regarding the account of trees standing through "millions of years of history"? I really don't know where to find the truth in many relevant details.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 12:15:30 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 11:00:25 AM, Airaux2 wrote:
...

I instinctively agree with you, but I don't know if I'm credulously believing what scientists have told me. Hovind has some seemingly wild ideas and one scientific method he rails against is dating methods, saying they're bogus. It seems crazy, but I want to avoid taking conventionally believed ideas for granted aswell. Eg - what is the truth regarding the account of trees standing through "millions of years of history"? I really don't know where to find the truth in many relevant details.

You're not going to find "the truth" about millions of years of history, because nobody alive today was there. So I don't think you have any choice but to think it through for yourself. If indeed there is a tree running vertically through strata, what does that tell you about the relative ages of said strata?

There's been another 'whoops' kind of thing recently, where still-elastic tendons have been found in dinosaur remains alleged to be some 60 millions of years old. We've all seen elasticity decay. Shoot, you lose elasticity as you age, even in a living body. So there's just no way, the 60 million year date is obviously fabulously wrong.
This space for rent.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 1:20:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I really don't know where to find the truth in many relevant details.
If Hovind was reliable, he would give clear references for such 'facts'. That doesn't apply to every fact - for many things in the evolution debate evidence for and against is well known by everbody interested in the debate, or is reality availanle from standard refrence sources but that does not apply to trees spanning mutiple strata.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 2:03:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I am neither a creationist nor an evolutionist.

Atheists believe in miracles, otherwise there is no demonstrable evidence that time exists.

Irony is, 'Empiricists' on this forum believe in theory of evolution!
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 8:07:23 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 1:31:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Welcome, Air.

I would like to acknowledge the honesty and courage with which you have made this statement.

By way of disclosure, I was educated and worked as a research scientist (though these days I'm more of a consultant, writer and musician.) My field is not geology nor any earth science, but having worked in science research, education, communication, administration and consulting I well appreciate the problem you face. Here's my take, which you are welcome to question or dispute.

Unless you are a geologist, biologist or similar, you will not have direct evidence on matters like the age of the earth and the origin of species nor the complete set of tools to needed to analyse and verify it anyway. You only have indirect evidence -- that is, evidence compiled from the behaviour and methods of professionals who themselves compile and analyse evidence.

The question then is how trustworthy are the professionals, and many people decide that based on how they feel: advice given by polite, honest-seeming people like themselves, with apparently distinguished credentials, speaking in language they understand and trust, tends to be trusted more than other advice.

Unfortunately, all of that can be and is manipulated by media communications. That's how advertising and public relations work. So it's no assurance of fairness, accuracy or reliability at all.

What then is the alternative?

I believe the more reliable alternative -- in fact the only alternative I believe viable -- is to understand the history, philosophy and methods of science well enough that you can see which groups are adhering to their values, methods and accountabilities, and which aren't. In particular, you need to be able to discern for yourself the difference between science, pseudoscience (sounds like science but isn't), and antiscience (a conspiracy theory that some science fields are incompetent, corrupt or fraudulent), and understand the evidence that would validate and verify each position.

There are several members here, myself included, who can walk you through those positions, and how they can be validated andu verified by any ordinary person with a high school education, using nothing more than the Internet. It's hard work and can't be resolved in a single post, but it's doable.

Should you wish to explore that approach, I would be happy to help you do so, without telling you what to think (though I may tell you what I think and why I think it.) I suspect that several other members would be glad to assist too.

Or you may prefer to roll up the sleeves and get into the evidence of radiometry, fossils, speciation, mutation, selection, epigenetics, information theory... but I can attest from having watching those conversations that they can circle and swirl with claim and counterclaim and often miss the fundamentals of what constitutes scientific evidence, how an hypothesis forms, and what validates or falsifies it. So while you could go that way, you may end up wanting to come back to the fundamentals anyway. :D

It can also help to understand why this fight is occurring now, where it is occurring, and what's at stake. That way you can see the agendas more clearly at play. That relates to the history of religion and society, and not just the history of science. I'd be happy to help with that too. :D

Please poke if any of these are of interest.

Hi - thanks for offering to help, which I think could be greatly helpful. I have to go out in a few minutes, but I aim to contact you later, after I've made a pr"cis of the areas of importance.
Would you like tell me where you're coming from in matters of your beliefs - scientific, religious, etc., so I can get a reference point as to how to address this?
Hope to hear from you - Andrew.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 9:10:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 8:07:23 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
Hi - thanks for offering to help, which I think could be greatly helpful. I have to go out in a few minutes, but I aim to contact you later, after I've made a precis of the areas of importance.
That's fine. If you let me know where you'd like to focus, I'll make some recommendations on how to approach it, and if they meet your approval, that's how we can structure things. This has to be for you -- not for my self-satisfaction; so I'll do my best to meet your needs within the limits of effort and forum.

My only stipulation at this point is that we do so in forum rather than (say) in private message. That'll allow other members to contribute, offer accountability for anything I say they disagree with, and perhaps raise questions of broader interest for later discussion. I'm aware that some other members are as interested in the history of science as me, and some know more about biology than I do. So if they'd like to chip in with referenced contributions, they're welcome to do so.

Would you like tell me where you're coming from in matters of your beliefs - scientific, religious, etc., so I can get a reference point as to how to address this?

By training and temperament I'm an empiricist [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. That means I understand knowledge to come principally from observation. This is an approach first developed in philosophy, but adopted by science in the 17th and 18th centuries, and which has now disseminated into engineering, journalism, law, business, public policy -- it's widely accepted that knowledge is built from evidence, and the gold standard of evidence is observation.

Theologically I'm what's called a 'hard' or 'strong' atheist. That 'hard' doesn't mean militant; it means someone who rejects theology as false or invalid in terms of its truth. That also doesn't mean I hold that religion has no value culturally or psychologically. It more means I think it's not useful in terms of predicting how things work. :) Morally I'd say I'm a humanist: I hold that the full measure of good and bad is its impact upon the dignity, well-being and agency of individuals, society and our species' interests. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] (There are Christian and other theistic humanists too.) Doctrinally I support freethought -- a rather antiquated name for the philosophical position that developing your critical thought is more important than getting you to agree with my beliefs. :) [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

It's not my purpose to recruit you to atheism, humanism or freethought. Really, my purpose is to explain how a culture of 17th century scientists who were virtually all Christians or Deists came to investigate the origin of species, only to end up two centuries later no longer believing traditional Abrahamic Creation doctrines, despite many of them remaining Christian. I'd also like to talk about why this fight is still under way over a century later, and what's at stake.

And the main reason I'd like to help is probably my devotion to critical thought: I view our cultural and intellectual history as our birthright. It's important as citizens that we understand it as best we can. But I have no stake in whatever sense you make of it afterward. :) As far as I'm concerned, you're free to disagree with me (also known as 'being wrong') as many times as you want, for as long as you want. :D
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 11:22:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 1:31:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Welcome, Air.

I would like to acknowledge the honesty and courage with which you have made this statement.

By way of disclosure, I was educated and worked as a research scientist (though these days I'm more of a consultant, writer and musician.) My field is not geology nor any earth science, but having worked in science research, education, communication, administration and consulting I well appreciate the problem you face. Here's my take, which you are welcome to question or dispute.

Unless you are a geologist, biologist or similar, you will not have direct evidence on matters like the age of the earth and the origin of species nor the complete set of tools to needed to analyse and verify it anyway. You only have indirect evidence -- that is, evidence compiled from the behaviour and methods of professionals who themselves compile and analyse evidence.

The question then is how trustworthy are the professionals, and many people decide that based on how they feel: advice given by polite, honest-seeming people like themselves, with apparently distinguished credentials, speaking in language they understand and trust, tends to be trusted more than other advice.

Unfortunately, all of that can be and is manipulated by media communications. That's how advertising and public relations work. So it's no assurance of fairness, accuracy or reliability at all.

What then is the alternative?

I believe the more reliable alternative -- in fact the only alternative I believe viable -- is to understand the history, philosophy and methods of science well enough that you can see which groups are adhering to their values, methods and accountabilities, and which aren't. In particular, you need to be able to discern for yourself the difference between science, pseudoscience (sounds like science but isn't),

and antiscience (a conspiracy theory that some science fields are incompetent, corrupt or fraudulent), and understand the evidence that would validate and verify each position.


Wait, so anyone claiming that there is an entire nation that has dedicated themselves to corrupting science, and not only science, but all laws like everything from physics to moral laws, and whose "science fields are incompetent, corrupt or fraudulent" is a conspiracy theorist?

Hello Airaux2, .. look up 666CERN and their 6LHC Temple, they are real, and will stop at nothing even changing definition of words, history and now the weather too. They have not only labeled (Taxonomy) humans as animals, apes not so distant cousins of rats, but just 70 years ago actually tried to exterminate all those they identified as such. And even experimented on them as if they were lab-rats!

Today this continues on a much larger scale, one huge one is the "You Have Cancer" conspiracy where they continue their Dr. Mengele torture to death campaign, especially on CHILDREN. They continue torturing our children with inoculations and now this "You Have Cancer" where they take as long as 8 years to slooowly kill a child with chemo therapy and radiation.

Take a look at this celebration of science and technology, and see the relation to 666CERN and their LHC Temple of the skull&bones worshipping BB-Evolution religion.

https://www.youtube.com...

Kent Hovind got them pegged, that's why all the negative comments from the Grave robbing, skull&bones worshipping atheistic God hating BB-Evolutionists against him!
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 11:37:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 11:22:56 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 7/25/2016 1:31:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
The only alternative I believe viable -- is to understand the history, philosophy and methods of science well enough that you can see which groups are adhering to their values, methods and accountabilities, and which aren't. In particular, you need to be able to discern for yourself the difference between science, pseudoscience (sounds like science but isn't), and antiscience (a conspiracy theory that some science fields are incompetent, corrupt or fraudulent), and understand the evidence that would validate and verify each position.

Wait, so anyone claiming that there is an entire nation that has dedicated themselves to corrupting science, and not only science, but all laws like everything from physics to moral laws, and whose "science fields are incompetent, corrupt or fraudulent" is a conspiracy theorist?

Ev, you're asking me whether a person who theorises a grand, malignant conspiracy is a conspiracy theorist?

Yes, I think that's precisely what 'conspiracy theorist' means. :D

I hope we might get to how a grand scientific conspiracy might be validated and verified, though I expect that's not the first question we'll get to. :D
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 12:27:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 11:37:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/25/2016 11:22:56 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 7/25/2016 1:31:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
The only alternative I believe viable -- is to understand the history, philosophy and methods of science well enough that you can see which groups are adhering to their values, methods and accountabilities, and which aren't. In particular, you need to be able to discern for yourself the difference between science, pseudoscience (sounds like science but isn't), and antiscience (a conspiracy theory that some science fields are incompetent, corrupt or fraudulent), and understand the evidence that would validate and verify each position.

Wait, so anyone claiming that there is an entire nation that has dedicated themselves to corrupting science, and not only science, but all laws like everything from physics to moral laws, and whose "science fields are incompetent, corrupt or fraudulent" is a conspiracy theorist?

Ev, you're asking me whether a person who theorises a grand, malignant conspiracy is a conspiracy theorist?


Who is theorizing Ruv? I was revealing facts, history, even videos, you must be thinking BB-Evolution!?

Yes, I think that's precisely what 'conspiracy theorist' means. :D


Yes, theorizing is what a conspiracy theorist does, true. And calling a conspiracy a "theory" is what conspirators do.

I hope we might get to how a grand scientific conspiracy might be validated and verified, though I expect that's not the first question we'll get to. :

You can't get any bigger conspiracy than this BB-Evolution falsely claimed scientific theory is, .. hands down it has become Lucifer's biggest, proudest idea yet.

First, he (Lucifer) had the pagan-god-worshipping Romans take over the scrolls and all the Bible writings, then change our Infinite Creator to a Deity, which is none other than the deified Satan to godhood and the rest of the Biblical characters as his minions. Then by the sword made all nations bow to the Beast by enforcing the Trinity Doctrine which is actually a combination of all other religions and gods, that's why it is so acceptable, you can still have your own personally made up god and be a Christian, a Muslim, Hindu etc.

This still wasn't enough since people got a hold of the Bible for themselves, and they liked the Bible, so then Lucifer found his favorite nation to whom he promised the world and all it's riches and kingdoms to rob, torture, and sacrifice to Lucifer himself by taking over science, education, and by the power of the Radio, Television and now the Internet, or as is properly called the World Wide Web, .. created the biggest One World Mind-numbing religion I call the Skull & Bones BB Evolution religion, and all in the name of science too.

So this Religion has taken over (in the minds and hearts of men) God and science, so now they dictate morality AND what is considered science. If it doesn't support (in one way or another) their BB-Evolution religion, it is not considered science, even though they will steal the information and use it in their secret Temple Chambers for their own cause like they did Nicola Tesla's discoveries, all to build weapons of mass destruction.

One would have to be completely blind and walk in complete self-induced darkness not to see this! Even the blind could at least hear the Obamanation!
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 12:27:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?

I would be more than happy to run through any scientific questions you have, I think between the members here, we have a better than average understanding of most questions that you can answer.

I am sure we'e also more than happy to assist in understanding the ethical nature of the argument; the type of arguments people make against science, and the details of why they sound convincing but actually aren't.

Most importantly, I am pretty sure that we can all do this without having you "trust" us on anything, and will always come with a detailed explanation of "why" we think this is true.

Unfortunately, though, like many aspects of the world, your concerns are far too broad to reply in one post, so if you want to narrow it down to one particular area at a time, I'm sure we'll have a place to begin.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 2:48:16 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 12:27:07 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 7/25/2016 11:37:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Ev, you're asking me whether a person who theorises a grand, malignant conspiracy is a conspiracy theorist? Yes, I think that's precisely what 'conspiracy theorist' means. :D
Who is theorizing Ruv? I was revealing facts, history, even videos, you must be thinking BB-Evolution!?
You're running off-topic, Ev, and I think you're trolling.

You can't get any bigger conspiracy than this BB-Evolution falsely claimed scientific theory is, .. hands down it has become Lucifer's biggest, proudest idea yet.
I don't recall you ever taking such a strong position in discussion before but regardless, that's not really for this thread. If you'd like to pick it up theologically you could do it in Religion... The part you can do in Science is just the part that says there's systematic fraud.

Either way, I have nothing substantive to say about it in this thread.

One would have to be completely blind and walk in complete self-induced darkness not to see this! Even the blind could at least hear the Obamanation!
Mmmm. Trolling, I think. :)
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 2:51:34 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 11:00:25 AM, Airaux2 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 8:33:16 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?

I need an example of a tree standing in millions of years of strata, that strata would have had to be dated for this to be known. Often we find a layer from a certain time that is very large because there was a massive deposit.

Trees can stay upright for decades after death and some trees that have been submerged can keep on living. For example in the Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee after many trees are still growing even after they were submerged in an earthquake in 1812.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://ncse.com...
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com...

I heard that Hovind has a crackpot theory of a layer of water in the sky that was there for thousands of years and fell down as part of the flood. The first problem is that this had to be in gaseous forum or else it will fall to the ground because of gravity. There can only be so much water gas in the sky before it forms into rain so it is impossible for such a layer of water to remain in the sky for long.

Also an ocean's worth of water would be very heavy and would kill all life on earth in the way that divers who go too low into the ocean are crushed by the pressure. Also think about a really cloudy day and how dark it was. All that water gas in the sky would have formed so many clouds that it would have been extremely dark and would block out most of the light of the sun killing all life.

The examples of bad dating methods are usually dating methods that are misused. For example, using radiometric dating to date something really recent and coming up with millions of years, when radiometric dating is only accurate for very old things because of its very slow level of decay.

In actual tests of our dating methods we have found multiple techniques arriving at the same dates which is statistically unlikely if they were false.

I instinctively agree with you, but I don't know if I'm credulously believing what scientists have told me. Hovind has some seemingly wild ideas and one scientific method he rails against is dating methods, saying they're bogus. It seems crazy, but I want to avoid taking conventionally believed ideas for granted aswell. Eg - what is the truth regarding the account of trees standing through "millions of years of history"? I really don't know where to find the truth in many relevant details.

Why don't you look at both sides of the issue:
I googled:
site:debate.org/debates dating

I found some great debates on this issue.
Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 6:06:55 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 12:27:10 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?

I would be more than happy to run through any scientific questions you have, I think between the members here, we have a better than average understanding of most questions that you can answer.

I am sure we'e also more than happy to assist in understanding the ethical nature of the argument; the type of arguments people make against science, and the details of why they sound convincing but actually aren't.

Most importantly, I am pretty sure that we can all do this without having you "trust" us on anything, and will always come with a detailed explanation of "why" we think this is true.

Unfortunately, though, like many aspects of the world, your concerns are far too broad to reply in one post, so if you want to narrow it down to one particular area at a time, I'm sure we'll have a place to begin.

Thanks - I hope to talk about relevant facts with you. I'll prepare questions and get back to you.
bamiller43
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 7:44:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 10:56:44 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 8:33:16 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?

I need an example of a tree standing in millions of years of strata, that strata would have had to be dated for this to be known. Often we find a layer from a certain time that is very large because there was a massive deposit.

Trees can stay upright for decades after death and some trees that have been submerged can keep on living. For example in the Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee after many trees are still growing even after they were submerged in an earthquake in 1812.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://ncse.com...
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com...

I heard that Hovind has a crackpot theory of a layer of water in the sky that was there for thousands of years and fell down as part of the flood. The first problem is that this had to be in gaseous forum or else it will fall to the ground because of gravity. There can only be so much water gas in the sky before it forms into rain so it is impossible for such a layer of water to remain in the sky for long.

Also an ocean's worth of water would be very heavy and would kill all life on earth in the way that divers who go too low into the ocean are crushed by the pressure. Also think about a really cloudy day and how dark it was. All that water gas in the sky would have formed so many clouds that it would have been extremely dark and would block out most of the light of the sun killing all life.

The examples of bad dating methods are usually dating methods that are misused. For example, using radiometric dating to date something really recent and coming up with millions of years, when radiometric dating is only accurate for very old things because of its very slow level of decay.

In actual tests of our dating methods we have found multiple techniques arriving at the same dates which is statistically unlikely if they were false.

This is exactly the kind of thing I mean - I need to find out whether such claims are credible. Eg - Hovind says there are trees upright between "millions of years" of history. I don't know where to look for an unbiased source to enlighten me as to its truth. Dating methods - as a layman, and a man lacking scientific knowledge, how do I know who and what info. to trust? I don't know what sites to access.

Any religious sites are inherently going to be biased, as they are trying to promote their views through science, even if things don't add up. I tend to trust government funded and university websites, as universities do lots of research themselves, and the government is (supposed to be) unbiased. At the very least it's going to be one of the most objective sources you'll find.
Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 8:20:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 1:31:23 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Welcome, Air.

I would like to acknowledge the honesty and courage with which you have made this statement.

By way of disclosure, I was educated and worked as a research scientist (though these days I'm more of a consultant, writer and musician.) My field is not geology nor any earth science, but having worked in science research, education, communication, administration and consulting I well appreciate the problem you face. Here's my take, which you are welcome to question or dispute.

Unless you are a geologist, biologist or similar, you will not have direct evidence on matters like the age of the earth and the origin of species nor the complete set of tools to needed to analyse and verify it anyway. You only have indirect evidence -- that is, evidence compiled from the behaviour and methods of professionals who themselves compile and analyse evidence.

The question then is how trustworthy are the professionals, and many people decide that based on how they feel: advice given by polite, honest-seeming people like themselves, with apparently distinguished credentials, speaking in language they understand and trust, tends to be trusted more than other advice.

Unfortunately, all of that can be and is manipulated by media communications. That's how advertising and public relations work. So it's no assurance of fairness, accuracy or reliability at all.

What then is the alternative?

I believe the more reliable alternative -- in fact the only alternative I believe viable -- is to understand the history, philosophy and methods of science well enough that you can see which groups are adhering to their values, methods and accountabilities, and which aren't. In particular, you need to be able to discern for yourself the difference between science, pseudoscience (sounds like science but isn't), and antiscience (a conspiracy theory that some science fields are incompetent, corrupt or fraudulent), and understand the evidence that would validate and verify each position.

There are several members here, myself included, who can walk you through those positions, and how they can be validated and verified by any ordinary person with a high school education, using nothing more than the Internet. It's hard work and can't be resolved in a single post, but it's doable.

Should you wish to explore that approach, I would be happy to help you do so, without telling you what to think (though I may tell you what I think and why I think it.) I suspect that several other members would be glad to assist too.

Or you may prefer to roll up the sleeves and get into the evidence of radiometry, fossils, speciation, mutation, selection, epigenetics, information theory... but I can attest from having watching those conversations that they can circle and swirl with claim and counterclaim and often miss the fundamentals of what constitutes scientific evidence, how an hypothesis forms, and what validates or falsifies it. So while you could go that way, you may end up wanting to come back to the fundamentals anyway. :D

It can also help to understand why this fight is occurring now, where it is occurring, and what's at stake. That way you can see the agendas more clearly at play. That relates to the history of religion and society, and not just the history of science. I'd be happy to help with that too. :D

Please poke if any of these are of interest.

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you - I've been unexpectedly delayed. I should be writing with a summary of my concerts soon - Andrew.
Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 8:22:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 7:44:53 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 10:56:44 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 8:33:16 PM, distraff wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:37:07 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
I've come across much debating about whether the Earth was formed about 4,000,000,000 years ago and Evolution brought us to where we are now, and Creation by God over a 6 day period. During thus discourse, evidence is mentioned to which I don't have access - eg - the Geologic column - whether it represents millions of years in build up of matter, or, as Kent Hovind says, a simple build up of matter in the Flood. He says there are trees standing up through multiple layers of so called millions of years of development. Then, there's the issue of dating methods. As a layman, I don't know how to find evidence for myself.
Would anyone like to discuss this?

I need an example of a tree standing in millions of years of strata, that strata would have had to be dated for this to be known. Often we find a layer from a certain time that is very large because there was a massive deposit.

Trees can stay upright for decades after death and some trees that have been submerged can keep on living. For example in the Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee after many trees are still growing even after they were submerged in an earthquake in 1812.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://ncse.com...
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com...

I heard that Hovind has a crackpot theory of a layer of water in the sky that was there for thousands of years and fell down as part of the flood. The first problem is that this had to be in gaseous forum or else it will fall to the ground because of gravity. There can only be so much water gas in the sky before it forms into rain so it is impossible for such a layer of water to remain in the sky for long.

Also an ocean's worth of water would be very heavy and would kill all life on earth in the way that divers who go too low into the ocean are crushed by the pressure. Also think about a really cloudy day and how dark it was. All that water gas in the sky would have formed so many clouds that it would have been extremely dark and would block out most of the light of the sun killing all life.

The examples of bad dating methods are usually dating methods that are misused. For example, using radiometric dating to date something really recent and coming up with millions of years, when radiometric dating is only accurate for very old things because of its very slow level of decay.

In actual tests of our dating methods we have found multiple techniques arriving at the same dates which is statistically unlikely if they were false.

This is exactly the kind of thing I mean - I need to find out whether such claims are credible. Eg - Hovind says there are trees upright between "millions of years" of history. I don't know where to look for an unbiased source to enlighten me as to its truth. Dating methods - as a layman, and a man lacking scientific knowledge, how do I know who and what info. to trust? I don't know what sites to access.

Any religious sites are inherently going to be biased, as they are trying to promote their views through science, even if things don't add up. I tend to trust government funded and university websites, as universities do lots of research themselves, and the government is (supposed to be) unbiased. At the very least it's going to be one of the most objective sources you'll find.

Thanks, everybody, for your contributions. I'll get back shortly with specific issues - Andrew.
Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 3:22:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:10:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/25/2016 8:07:23 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
Hi - thanks for offering to help, which I think could be greatly helpful. I have to go out in a few minutes, but I aim to contact you later, after I've made a precis of the areas of importance.
That's fine. If you let me know where you'd like to focus, I'll make some recommendations on how to approach it, and if they meet your approval, that's how we can structure things. This has to be for you -- not for my self-satisfaction; so I'll do my best to meet your needs within the limits of effort and forum.

My only stipulation at this point is that we do so in forum rather than (say) in private message. That'll allow other members to contribute, offer accountability for anything I say they disagree with, and perhaps raise questions of broader interest for later discussion. I'm aware that some other members are as interested in the history of science as me, and some know more about biology than I do. So if they'd like to chip in with referenced contributions, they're welcome to do so.

Would you like tell me where you're coming from in matters of your beliefs - scientific, religious, etc., so I can get a reference point as to how to address this?

By training and temperament I'm an empiricist [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. That means I understand knowledge to come principally from observation. This is an approach first developed in philosophy, but adopted by science in the 17th and 18th centuries, and which has now disseminated into engineering, journalism, law, business, public policy -- it's widely accepted that knowledge is built from evidence, and the gold standard of evidence is observation.

Theologically I'm what's called a 'hard' or 'strong' atheist. That 'hard' doesn't mean militant; it means someone who rejects theology as false or invalid in terms of its truth. That also doesn't mean I hold that religion has no value culturally or psychologically. It more means I think it's not useful in terms of predicting how things work. :) Morally I'd say I'm a humanist: I hold that the full measure of good and bad is its impact upon the dignity, well-being and agency of individuals, society and our species' interests. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] (There are Christian and other theistic humanists too.) Doctrinally I support freethought -- a rather antiquated name for the philosophical position that developing your critical thought is more important than getting you to agree with my beliefs. :) [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

It's not my purpose to recruit you to atheism, humanism or freethought. Really, my purpose is to explain how a culture of 17th century scientists who were virtually all Christians or Deists came to investigate the origin of species, only to end up two centuries later no longer believing traditional Abrahamic Creation doctrines, despite many of them remaining Christian. I'd also like to talk about why this fight is still under way over a century later, and what's at stake.

And the main reason I'd like to help is probably my devotion to critical thought: I view our cultural and intellectual history as our birthright. It's important as citizens that we understand it as best we can. But I have no stake in whatever sense you make of it afterward. :) As far as I'm concerned, you're free to disagree with me (also known as 'being wrong') as many times as you want, for as long as you want. :D

I must admit, I thought by now, I'd have got round to setting a structured format of areas of concern, but I'd like to mention a few things as they occur to me and see where it takes us. I think then we'll quite soon get the ball rolling.
One thing that concerns me is the issue of various types of dating methods. Although as a layman, I've never understood them, my general trust in scientists has led me to accept it without question. Now that I've encountered opposition to the idea, and having experienced religion, I've come to question previously held beliefs.
Many people say that dating methods are flawed, because after a certain period of time, one loses accuracy. One example given was a living being being dated as 100,000s of years old.
Could you give me an idea as to how to get a trustworthy account of dating fossils and rocks?
Looncall
Posts: 463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 4:47:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 3:22:38 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:10:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/25/2016 8:07:23 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
Hi - thanks for offering to help, which I think could be greatly helpful. I have to go out in a few minutes, but I aim to contact you later, after I've made a precis of the areas of importance.
That's fine. If you let me know where you'd like to focus, I'll make some recommendations on how to approach it, and if they meet your approval, that's how we can structure things. This has to be for you -- not for my self-satisfaction; so I'll do my best to meet your needs within the limits of effort and forum.

My only stipulation at this point is that we do so in forum rather than (say) in private message. That'll allow other members to contribute, offer accountability for anything I say they disagree with, and perhaps raise questions of broader interest for later discussion. I'm aware that some other members are as interested in the history of science as me, and some know more about biology than I do. So if they'd like to chip in with referenced contributions, they're welcome to do so.

Would you like tell me where you're coming from in matters of your beliefs - scientific, religious, etc., so I can get a reference point as to how to address this?

By training and temperament I'm an empiricist [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. That means I understand knowledge to come principally from observation. This is an approach first developed in philosophy, but adopted by science in the 17th and 18th centuries, and which has now disseminated into engineering, journalism, law, business, public policy -- it's widely accepted that knowledge is built from evidence, and the gold standard of evidence is observation.

Theologically I'm what's called a 'hard' or 'strong' atheist. That 'hard' doesn't mean militant; it means someone who rejects theology as false or invalid in terms of its truth. That also doesn't mean I hold that religion has no value culturally or psychologically. It more means I think it's not useful in terms of predicting how things work. :) Morally I'd say I'm a humanist: I hold that the full measure of good and bad is its impact upon the dignity, well-being and agency of individuals, society and our species' interests. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] (There are Christian and other theistic humanists too.) Doctrinally I support freethought -- a rather antiquated name for the philosophical position that developing your critical thought is more important than getting you to agree with my beliefs. :) [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

It's not my purpose to recruit you to atheism, humanism or freethought. Really, my purpose is to explain how a culture of 17th century scientists who were virtually all Christians or Deists came to investigate the origin of species, only to end up two centuries later no longer believing traditional Abrahamic Creation doctrines, despite many of them remaining Christian. I'd also like to talk about why this fight is still under way over a century later, and what's at stake.

And the main reason I'd like to help is probably my devotion to critical thought: I view our cultural and intellectual history as our birthright. It's important as citizens that we understand it as best we can. But I have no stake in whatever sense you make of it afterward. :) As far as I'm concerned, you're free to disagree with me (also known as 'being wrong') as many times as you want, for as long as you want. :D

I must admit, I thought by now, I'd have got round to setting a structured format of areas of concern, but I'd like to mention a few things as they occur to me and see where it takes us. I think then we'll quite soon get the ball rolling.
One thing that concerns me is the issue of various types of dating methods. Although as a layman, I've never understood them, my general trust in scientists has led me to accept it without question. Now that I've encountered opposition to the idea, and having experienced religion, I've come to question previously held beliefs.
Many people say that dating methods are flawed, because after a certain period of time, one loses accuracy. One example given was a living being being dated as 100,000s of years old.
Could you give me an idea as to how to get a trustworthy account of dating fossils and rocks?

If you search for "Roger Wiens Radiometric Dating", you will find an amazingly thorough discussion of dating methods.

I have made my living dealing with radioactivity for over thirty years and can say with confidence that that article can be relied on.

Do not be mislead by scoundrels who peddle lies in order to fleece the gullible.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 5:12:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 4:47:12 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 7/27/2016 3:22:38 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:10:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/25/2016 8:07:23 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
Hi - thanks for offering to help, which I think could be greatly helpful. I have to go out in a few minutes, but I aim to contact you later, after I've made a precis of the areas of importance.
That's fine. If you let me know where you'd like to focus, I'll make some recommendations on how to approach it, and if they meet your approval, that's how we can structure things. This has to be for you -- not for my self-satisfaction; so I'll do my best to meet your needs within the limits of effort and forum.

My only stipulation at this point is that we do so in forum rather than (say) in private message. That'll allow other members to contribute, offer accountability for anything I say they disagree with, and perhaps raise questions of broader interest for later discussion. I'm aware that some other members are as interested in the history of science as me, and some know more about biology than I do. So if they'd like to chip in with referenced contributions, they're welcome to do so.

Would you like tell me where you're coming from in matters of your beliefs - scientific, religious, etc., so I can get a reference point as to how to address this?

By training and temperament I'm an empiricist [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. That means I understand knowledge to come principally from observation. This is an approach first developed in philosophy, but adopted by science in the 17th and 18th centuries, and which has now disseminated into engineering, journalism, law, business, public policy -- it's widely accepted that knowledge is built from evidence, and the gold standard of evidence is observation.

Theologically I'm what's called a 'hard' or 'strong' atheist. That 'hard' doesn't mean militant; it means someone who rejects theology as false or invalid in terms of its truth. That also doesn't mean I hold that religion has no value culturally or psychologically. It more means I think it's not useful in terms of predicting how things work. :) Morally I'd say I'm a humanist: I hold that the full measure of good and bad is its impact upon the dignity, well-being and agency of individuals, society and our species' interests. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] (There are Christian and other theistic humanists too.) Doctrinally I support freethought -- a rather antiquated name for the philosophical position that developing your critical thought is more important than getting you to agree with my beliefs. :) [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

It's not my purpose to recruit you to atheism, humanism or freethought. Really, my purpose is to explain how a culture of 17th century scientists who were virtually all Christians or Deists came to investigate the origin of species, only to end up two centuries later no longer believing traditional Abrahamic Creation doctrines, despite many of them remaining Christian. I'd also like to talk about why this fight is still under way over a century later, and what's at stake.

And the main reason I'd like to help is probably my devotion to critical thought: I view our cultural and intellectual history as our birthright. It's important as citizens that we understand it as best we can. But I have no stake in whatever sense you make of it afterward. :) As far as I'm concerned, you're free to disagree with me (also known as 'being wrong') as many times as you want, for as long as you want. :D

I must admit, I thought by now, I'd have got round to setting a structured format of areas of concern, but I'd like to mention a few things as they occur to me and see where it takes us. I think then we'll quite soon get the ball rolling.
One thing that concerns me is the issue of various types of dating methods. Although as a layman, I've never understood them, my general trust in scientists has led me to accept it without question. Now that I've encountered opposition to the idea, and having experienced religion, I've come to question previously held beliefs.
Many people say that dating methods are flawed, because after a certain period of time, one loses accuracy. One example given was a living being being dated as 100,000s of years old.
Could you give me an idea as to how to get a trustworthy account of dating fossils and rocks?

If you search for "Roger Wiens Radiometric Dating", you will find an amazingly thorough discussion of dating methods.

I have made my living dealing with radioactivity for over thirty years and can say with confidence that that article can be relied on.

Do not be mislead by scoundrels who peddle lies in order to fleece the gullible.

Thanks - I'll look it up. It's hard to see the wood for the trees, especially as a layman in scientific matters. There are many scientific/ religious matters I'm interested in shining the light on.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 6:35:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 3:22:38 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
One thing that concerns me is the issue of various types of dating methods. Although as a layman, I've never understood them, my general trust in scientists has led me to accept it without question. Now that I've encountered opposition to the idea, and having experienced religion, I've come to question previously held beliefs.
Many people say that dating methods are flawed, because after a certain period of time, one loses accuracy. One example given was a living being being dated as 100,000s of years old.
Could you give me an idea as to how to get a trustworthy account of dating fossils and rocks?
Sure, Air.

Fossils, as you know, are preserved traces of animals, plants and other organisms from the (remote) past. Paleontology is their study; and the term fossil record refers to the totality of all fossils, and their placement in rock-structures around the world.

Fossils are abundant, and have been known to humanity for thousands of years. The Greek philosopher Aristotle noted that fossil seashells resembled those that could be found on beaches, and concluded that they had once been living animals. Polymath Leonardo da Vinci also found the study of fossils fascinating, and jotted notes extensively on them in the years 1470-1480. Here is some of his reasoning, pieced together from various entries in his Notebooks, which are available as an ebook: [https://books.google.com.au...]

Why, he wrote, do we find the bones of great fishes and oysters and corals and various other shells and sea-snails high on the summits of mountains by the sea, just as we find them in low seas? If the deluge had to carry shells three hundred and four hundreds miles from the sea, it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects heaped together; and we see at such distances oysters all together, and sea-snails, and cuttlefish, and all the other shells which congregate together, all to be found together and dead; and the solitary shells wide apart from each other, as we may see them on-shores every day. [...] And that the shells in Lombardy are at four levels, and thus it is everywhere, having been made at various times. From the two lines of shells we are forced to say that the earth indignantly submerged under the sea and so the first layer was made; and then the deluge made the second.

So da Vinci was already beginning to conceive the basic idea of paleontology -- building a narrative of history from the mechanisms by which fossils formed. At the time when he was writing every scholar in Europe was either Christian, Muslim or Jewish, and all had inherited the same stories from Genesis. And good Roman Catholic though he was, da Vinci was already finding significant discrepancy between the Creation/Flood story he'd inherited and the fossil record. I mentioned this in detail to show that Young Earth Creationists who want to argue atheist/secular scientific conspiracy must date that conspiracy as far back as the Renaissance, when there were no atheists or agnostics, and modern science hadn't actually been developed. :D

Fast forward to the 18th century, and the scientific method -- of incremental observation, conjecture, hypothecation, evidence-gathering, and refutation -- had been developed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] By then Europe was trading around the world, and people interested in fossils knew not only what da Vinci knew -- that fossils of sea-animals could be found atop mountains exactly as if they'd been growing there, but that there were remnants of animals nobody had ever seen alive. Not only that, but the fossils could be found in geologic layers called strata.

Geologist and canal engineer William Smith [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...] cut channels through rock routinely, and observed that rocks of different ages preserved different assemblages of fossils, and that they succeeded one another in a regular and determinable order -- in other words, they were a record, telling a story. An Englishman, Smith drew the world's first national geological survey map, showing how the strata connect, building up a geological picture of the rocks in Great Britain [http://www.livescience.com...] Without any mechanism for dating the age of the rock, Smith nevertheless realised you could correlate fossils from nearby areas using the rock strata, and correlate rock around the world by the kinds of fossils they contained. Thus from disparate patchworks of layered fossils and minerals, you could begin to piece together a global geological and paleontological story.

Here I should point out that there was as-yet no radiometric rock dating. Nobody had a clue about the age of the Earth until the 20th century -- after the Curies had done their work on radioactivity and the decay-rates of different radioactive minerals were being calibrated, and scientists had worked out how to turn these into a kind of geological clock.

So Darwin didn't make any 'old earth' assumptions in the Origin of Species. Through the 18th and 19th century, the evidence being collected about species were of three broad kinds: geological (fossils in rock-layers), biogeographic (the distribution of living and dead species around the globe), and anatomic (the morphology of species, living and dead.) So Darwin didn't 'prove' an old earth by studying fossils. Rather it was that geology, geography and morphology 'proved' (really just verified) Darwin. Later, 20th century radiometric dating further verified Darwin and told us that the Earth was vastly older than we'd suspected; and then after that, genetic analyses further verified Darwin's basic theories (though they added to them), and helped us restructure the way we do biological classifications.

The way science works, Air, is that an accurate theory must be supported by all the evidence, must accurately predict things yet to be discovered, and everything must cross-correlate. But as methods grow more sophisticated and observations grow more extensive, correct scientific predictions will begin to match precisely. In the case of evolution, key evidence now comes from geology, geography, paleomorphology, radiometry, biology, microbiology and genetics. The reason there's overwhelming support for evolution in the scientific community is the fact that all of this disparate evidence agreeing on the wrong theory by chance is infinitesimal. (Currently, it's lower than picking the same proton twice out of all the protons in the known universe -- poke me and I'll link you a paper which works this through. :D)

Anyway, that's the context for the radiometric dating. But before we get to radiometry, I'd like to explain to you what 18th century scientists were making of the changing species they saw in the fossil record, and how it was that in the 19th century, Darwin (and a geographer called Alfred Russel Wallace, working independently) worked out that species were evolving -- without directly seeing any species do it. I'd also like to talk you through how it was a skeptical society of Christian scientists was won over to this theory prior to radiometric dating, which will help explain why Young Earth Creationists grumbling over radiometric dating is more of a distraction than a real argument. Then we can get on to radiometric dating, then genetic correlations, if you'd like.

Please tell me if that suits you.
Airaux2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 7:53:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 6:35:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/27/2016 3:22:38 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
One thing that concerns me is the issue of various types of dating methods. Although as a layman, I've never understood them, my general trust in scientists has led me to accept it without question. Now that I've encountered opposition to the idea, and having experienced religion, I've come to question previously held beliefs.
Many people say that dating methods are flawed, because after a certain period of time, one loses accuracy. One example given was a living being being dated as 100,000s of years old.
Could you give me an idea as to how to get a trustworthy account of dating fossils and rocks?
Sure, Air.

Fossils, as you know, are preserved traces of animals, plants and other organisms from the (remote) past. Paleontology is their study; and the term fossil record refers to the totality of all fossils, and their placement in rock-structures around the world.

Fossils are abundant, and have been known to humanity for thousands of years. The Greek philosopher Aristotle noted that fossil seashells resembled those that could be found on beaches, and concluded that they had once been living animals. Polymath Leonardo da Vinci also found the study of fossils fascinating, and jotted notes extensively on them in the years 1470-1480. Here is some of his reasoning, pieced together from various entries in his Notebooks, which are available as an ebook: [https://books.google.com.au...]

Why, he wrote, do we find the bones of great fishes and oysters and corals and various other shells and sea-snails high on the summits of mountains by the sea, just as we find them in low seas? If the deluge had to carry shells three hundred and four hundreds miles from the sea, it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects heaped together; and we see at such distances oysters all together, and sea-snails, and cuttlefish, and all the other shells which congregate together, all to be found together and dead; and the solitary shells wide apart from each other, as we may see them on-shores every day. [...] And that the shells in Lombardy are at four levels, and thus it is everywhere, having been made at various times. From the two lines of shells we are forced to say that the earth indignantly submerged under the sea and so the first layer was made; and then the deluge made the second.

So da Vinci was already beginning to conceive the basic idea of paleontology -- building a narrative of history from the mechanisms by which fossils formed. At the time when he was writing every scholar in Europe was either Christian, Muslim or Jewish, and all had inherited the same stories from Genesis. And good Roman Catholic though he was, da Vinci was already finding significant discrepancy between the Creation/Flood story he'd inherited and the fossil record. I mentioned this in detail to show that Young Earth Creationists who want to argue atheist/secular scientific conspiracy must date that conspiracy as far back as the Renaissance, when there were no atheists or agnostics, and modern science hadn't actually been developed. :D

Fast forward to the 18th century, and the scientific method -- of incremental observation, conjecture, hypothecation, evidence-gathering, and refutation -- had been developed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] By then Europe was trading around the world, and people interested in fossils knew not only what da Vinci knew -- that fossils of sea-animals could be found atop mountains exactly as if they'd been growing there, but that there were remnants of animals nobody had ever seen alive. Not only that, but the fossils could be found in geologic layers called strata.

Geologist and canal engineer William Smith [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...] cut channels through rock routinely, and observed that rocks of different ages preserved different assemblages of fossils, and that they succeeded one another in a regular and determinable order -- in other words, they were a record, telling a story. An Englishman, Smith drew the world's first national geological survey map, showing how the strata connect, building up a geological picture of the rocks in Great Britain [http://www.livescience.com...] Without any mechanism for dating the age of the rock, Smith nevertheless realised you could correlate fossils from nearby areas using the rock strata, and correlate rock around the world by the kinds of fossils they contained. Thus from disparate patchworks of layered fossils and minerals, you could begin to piece together a global geological and paleontological story.

Here I should point out that there was as-yet no radiometric rock dating. Nobody had a clue about the age of the Earth until the 20th century -- after the Curies had done their work on radioactivity and the decay-rates of different radioactive minerals were being calibrated, and scientists had worked out how to turn these into a kind of geological clock.

So Darwin didn't make any 'old earth' assumptions in the Origin of Species. Through the 18th and 19th century, the evidence being collected about species were of three broad kinds: geological (fossils in rock-layers), biogeographic (the distribution of living and dead species around the globe), and anatomic (the morphology of species, living and dead.) So Darwin didn't 'prove' an old earth by studying fossils. Rather it was that geology, geography and morphology 'proved' (really just verified) Darwin. Later, 20th century radiometric dating further verified Darwin and told us that the Earth was vastly older than we'd suspected; and then after that, genetic analyses further verified Darwin's basic theories (though they added to them), and helped us restructure the way we do biological classifications.

The way science works, Air, is that an accurate theory must be supported by all the evidence, must accurately predict things yet to be discovered, and everything must cross-correlate. But as methods grow more sophisticated and observations grow more extensive, correct scientific predictions will begin to match precisely. In the case of evolution, key evidence now comes from geology, geography, paleomorphology, radiometry, biology, microbiology and genetics. The reason there's overwhelming support for evolution in the scientific community is the fact that all of this disparate evidence agreeing on the wrong theory by chance is infinitesimal. (Currently, it's lower than picking the same proton twice out of all the protons in the known universe -- poke me and I'll link you a paper which works this through. :D)

Anyway, that's the context for the radiometric dating. But before we get to radiometry, I'd like to explain to you what 18th century scientists were making of the changing species they saw in the fossil record, and how it was that in the 19th century, Darwin (and a geographer called Alfred Russel Wallace, working independently) worked out that species were evolving -- without directly seeing any species do it. I'd also like to talk you through how it was a skeptical society of Christian scientists was won over to this theory prior to radiometric dating, which will help explain why Young Earth Creationists grumbling over radiometric dating is more of a distraction than a real argument. Then we can get on to radiometric dating, then genetic correlations, if you'd like.

Please tell me if that suits you.

Thanks, Ruv. That's a lot of info.! I may be somewhat slow in grasping all relevant facts - unlike you, I a
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 7:58:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 7:53:34 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
At 7/27/2016 6:35:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/27/2016 3:22:38 PM, Airaux2 wrote:
One thing that concerns me is the issue of various types of dating methods. Although as a layman, I've never understood them, my general trust in scientists has led me to accept it without question. Now that I've encountered opposition to the idea, and having experienced religion, I've come to question previously held beliefs.
Many people say that dating methods are flawed, because after a certain period of time, one loses accuracy. One example given was a living being being dated as 100,000s of years old.
Could you give me an idea as to how to get a trustworthy account of dating fossils and rocks?

The way science works, Air, is that an accurate theory must be supported by all the evidence, must accurately predict things yet to be discovered, and everything must cross-correlate. But as methods grow more sophisticated and observations grow more extensive, correct scientific predictions will begin to match precisely. In the case of evolution, key evidence now comes from geology, geography, paleomorphology, radiometry, biology, microbiology and genetics. The reason there's overwhelming support for evolution in the scientific community is the fact that all of this disparate evidence agreeing on the wrong theory by chance is infinitesimal.
Before we get to radiometry, I'd like to explain to you what 18th century scientists were making of the changing species they saw in the fossil record, and how it was that in the 19th century, Darwin (and a geographer called Alfred Russel Wallace, working independently) worked out that species were evolving -- without directly seeing any species do it. I'd also like to talk you through how it was a skeptical society of Christian scientists was won over to this theory prior to radiometric dating, which will help explain why Young Earth Creationists grumbling over radiometric dating is more of a distraction than a real argument. Then we can get on to radiometric dating, then genetic correlations, if you'd like.

Thanks, Ruv. That's a lot of info.
I hope it wasn't too spammy.

By the way, there's a character-limit on posts, Air. You'll need to cut the quote stuff back to reply to it.