Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua
Empirical science and religion differ in some fundamental ways. Scientists look for questions to ask. Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.
Science has theories that are subject to change. In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. A year latter J.J. Thomson overturned this theory by reporting his discovery that atoms were actually comprised of smaller charged particles he called "protons", "electrons" and "neutrons". Later research demonstrated that Thomson's particles were comprised of even smaller particles.
Religion has truths that are to be accepted without question. Those who question these truths may be treated as heretics.
Real scientists encourage questions. They even ask questions about established theories including aspects of the Theory of Relativity and try to find ways these theories might be wrong. Stephan Hawking demonstrated what a real scientist does when he suggested he had been wrong when he suggested that information cannot escape from a black hole. Physicists have a model of the atom they are satisfied with, but that hasn’t stopped them from checking to see if they might have missed something. They are currently colliding heavy nuclei to test the model.
Relgion gets its truths from prophets or dieties. Science has to do things the hard way by conducting repeated observations and experiments. Science cannot verify theories about physical processes that cannot be examined.
Some people who call themselves scientists want science to become a substitute for religion, or at least function more like a religion.. Some believe that science can provide an explanation for events in the distant past that is so accurate it cannot be questioned. Such a claim is illogical because insufficient information is available. For example, those who talk about greenhouse gases state they can precisely determine past temperatures by examining tree rings or ice cores. The width of tree rings depends upon availability of water and the amount of time temperatures are within the range the tree can grow in, not average temperatures. The religious fanatics of the greenhouse gas religion have been accused of practicing censorship of those who disagree with their doctrine.
The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth has traditionally been the province of religion. Science can only deal effectively with the present. It cannot observe or manipulate the distant past to verify theories. The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth is interesting and scientific studies of the present might provide useful information, but science cannot provide a definitive answer to the question of how the universe or biological life came to exist. Science can only say what might have happened.
[Son, I know better. The tripe on those links doesn’t fool me; it just makes me shake my head in disgust at how gullible their intended audience really is.]
Pappa, the word ‘tripe’ does NOTHING to coutner facts- that tactic might work on DC but not here
[And I “misatribute what someone who has studied the matter has to say about it?” The links you cite all together amount to a few hours of “study” by their respective authors — all with the intent of finding a few scientific sounding terms which will serve to fool those who don’t know any better.]
Loooool- Yup- I’m pretty sure woodmorappe only spent a ‘few hours’ on his book- and by the way, you can find his work all over the internet seeing’s how you think not buying the book will somehow make hte problems of radiometric dating go poof in the night (I think I’m gonna make a song with that title- dedicate it to you)
[You clearly know little of science,]
Ahahaha- yup- you’ve done marvelous refutting the science I’ve presented in the many threads in response to your ad nauseum postings of already refutted facts. You can look down your nose all you like- but the fact is that when the science starts getting too deep- ytou run away (with comments like Hrmphhhh. well... that’s not my field- I don’t have to answer that)
[but are willing to take the word of any creationist website, no matter how ridiculous their arguments are shown to be, because you want to believe them.]
Nope- sorry- the fact is that I take the science they present and see that it is backed up- ignoring the facts isn’t science Coyote- but perhaps someday you’ll come to realize that- perhaps even right after you read Woodmorappe’s book!
[(Are you ever going to support some of the silly comments you have made about radiocarbon dating? Or have you given up?)]
I assume you are referring to the htread awhile ago where I made a mistake and DID already own up to it as you well know- but apparently needed to bring up again so others can be reminded of the mistake- but what I did is far more than you’ve been willing to do by simply running away from coutner evidences to your well refutted postings.
[The link you posted contains little other than an ad trying to sell me a book.]
Yeah- you’re right- no since spending a little money to uncover the truth- better to leave it alone and to continue to make the claim that radiometric dating is very nearly entirely accurate lol
lol but that should be trilobyte ‘cousins’
Me [Pappa, So is Woodmorappe, and I’m willing to bet He’s studied the radiometric dating game much more extensively than you which is why you’ll need to divert attention from his facts by engaging in ad hominem attacks,]
You [Woodmorappe is the pseudonym for a high school science teacher. I am willing to bet he has never done a radiocarbon date in his life. I have read a lot of his writings, and I doubt he has studied radiocarbon dating to any great extent either. He is a creationist; he doesn’t need scientific facts because the fervor of his religious belief is enough for his intended audience.]
BINGO- Prediction number one = entirely true. Gosh, what a surprise!
[But if you think he’s so hot, call him up bring him to FR, and we can have a debate on these very threads.]
Yes, I’m sure he’;d just love, and have plenty of time to sit around while you berate him with ad hominem Attacks all day long while ignoring his factual points altogether- Hang on, I’ll see if he’s busy- boy won’t he be happy to hear he can watch pettiness in action!
and by the way, how are those donkey braying voice lessons going? Got htose notes down pat yet?
I liked your line:
“When science is politicized, this natural process (good theories persisting with modification, and poor theories dying off and being replaced outright) is threatened, and poor theories end up being insulated from criticism, preventing improvement which would naturally arise from the scientific method.”
Should anyone think this exact chain of events has not happened, consider the debacle visited upon Russia thanks to Lysenko.
The GoreBull Warming hypothesis is another example.
And tell me somethign ?Coyote- I’m surious about something- we’ll ignore Woodmorappe’s book doesn’t exist- pretend that Woodmorappe didn’t expose the problems with radiocarbon dating- and I’ll ask this instead, How is it that many many times down through the ages dates have had to be pushed back 10-20-50-100 million years AFTER being dated with these highly accurate systems in the first place? Do evos get to pick and choose when they determine the dating methods to be accurate or not? If they got the dates wrong once, let alone the numerous times they have been given that the evidneces dated didn’t fit the new evidences discovered, wouldn’t that mean the methods they used in the first place were a bit suspect? The calibration off by oh say, a hundred million years or so? (Provided we’re to assume the earth is even that old- but for the sake of this question, we’ll pretend it is) How many times have these highly accurate systems of dating been ‘recalibrated’ to fit hte eivdences? I dunno about you, but if I had a calculator that had to be recalibrated al lthe time, I’d throw the sucker out- even just one mistake would make it suspect- let alone many mistakes as we see in evo dating game.
You probably had 600 radiocarbon tests done before the “proper” date (that you idiots wanted) was found.
Great posts and commendable patience are yours!
Exactly. Their belief system is based on falsehoods and deceit - so how could truth come forth in any fashion. One lie begets another until they are blinded of any truth. Denial is a stronghold on truth and the more they ‘dig’, the deeper they get until there is no way out. They dug their own eternal grave.
You need to cite a real reference, not a science denier site. There is no content on creationwiki that’s worth the effort to read. No one there knows what they are talking about. It’s a prime example of the Purveyors of Unknowledge. Obviously you’ve never actually done such an experiment, not do you understand the first thing about radiometric dating. You should stop peddling ignorance.
A literal interpretation of Genesis is fundamentally inconsistent with the last centurey years of science. A literal interpretation of Genesis is man’s interpretation and, by Man’s Fallen nature, flawed. In light of the evidence God provided in his creation, a literal account must be discarded. Otherwise, you are calling God a liar and are close to blashpemy.
Creationists are funny! I didn’t know birds had teeth, clawed hands, no beaks, lizard heads, dromaeosaurian hind claws (velociraptor hooks!), and unkeeled sternums. It’s only “no biggie” because you have your fingers in your ears going, “LA-LA-LA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”
Razzle, you are an obtuse buffoon. From reading your posts I conclude you are evidence impervious and a rude lout to boot. Goodbye.
Nuking the poor bugs so they obtain an unmanageable mutation load in one go and then failing to provide any selective force for any potentially useful mutations does not prove evolution cannot occur.
What the writer didn’t tell you was that this creature was later discovered to be fully terrestrial with feet for running- not swimming.
You'll be happy to hear that we have hundreds of fossils from three species of pakicetids, and new research shows they were completely aquatic, kind of like a cross between a pygmy hippo and a sea otter.
I didn’t say the authors left out thousands of Cynodonts- I brought up the fact that species were left out and only a coupel of examples are given for the supposed evolution of the ear hearing
Sometimes it's hard to discuss things with you because you're not very organized. The paper I presented was studying the trend of increasing dentary size in proportion to other jaw bones during cynodont evolution. These other jaw bones did not become involved in the ear until later in early mammalian evolution.
You did indeed say that the author had left out material in spite of having no evidence that the evidence was cherry-picked.
Considering how shoddy Woodmorappe's workmanship is, that's probably the only place you'll find it. I recently tried to go through a series of reference he cites for fossil reworking to confirm they were authentic and was unable to find many of them because dates, volume numbers, and page numbers were incorrect and he only gave cryptic two-letter abbreviations for the names of the journals. Several of the references I was able to turn up did not support his assertions at all. You can read the saga of my epic journey through his reference list here. I would be embarrassed to cite Woodmorappe as an authority considering the state of his reference pages!
This one paragraph shows why it is useless to discuss science with you. I am doing this for the lurkers, because you are unwilling to learn anything about the science you so disparage.
I have told you over and over again that radiocarbon dating only goes back some 50,000 years. It is not used to date the age of the earth.
How can you argue against the accuracy of the radiocarbon method when you don't even know what it is or how it works?
This seems to be the epitome of the creationist method:
That science stuff disagrees with our beliefs so its wrong somehow; we don't know how (science is hard!) but it's just gotta be wrong.
While there are similarities, this is because there are only a few ways for institutions of any size to function. Parallel and analogy okay, but substitution is pushing the model.
Ayeeuh?? I just noticed this. The animals alive in the Cambrian were truly bizarre and have led to a lot of "what the heck is this?" debates. Likewise, we have one set of organisms in the Cambrian, another set in the Devonian, another set in the Permian, another set in the Triassic, another set in the Cretaceous, and another set in the Tertiary. There have been many major life forms that arose and died out, and they're all stacked so neatly in the strata, with nary a Tertiary organism in the Triassic.
Some organisms are evolutionary orphans and survived the extinctions that took their fellows to live to the present, but in general change is the rule.
See post #217.
(And that's Dr. Idiot to you.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.