Posted on 08/19/2006 6:39:43 AM PDT by RaceBannon
I missed this one on my first response.
I do a lot of radiocarbon dating, and I would welcome the chance to discuss the inaccuracies you find in the method. But please, do not rely on the creationist websites for information, as they will lie to you.
Try some of these links first; most are religiously-oriented sites which will provide you with accurate information:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsThe American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
you have made one statement of allegory-as-fact.
you owned up to it when called on it.
I give you credit for that - many of those who argue your viepoint do not have that kind of integrity.
however, I suspect, from your posts, that you have not considered the possibility that many of your statements (ie: "Some fairly major assumptions about constancy have to be made - all of which begin assuming the conclusion (Lyell's geological timeframe) as the premise. They are assumptions not subject to falsification, since to do so under the scientific method would require a time machine.") are based on similar statements of allegory-as-fact.
I beg you to consider that you may have been misinformed by people less willing than you to own up to overstatement and as prone as you to issue pronouncements-as-stone that are built of dust and air.
Contrary to the various ad hominem's on this thread, I'm an independent thinker, not a follower. No I'm not the first to ask these questions. Rather, they are new to you because they are not dealt with in own circles.
I have to think that you are arguing from a religious belief, rather than a scientific background. I am sorry to have to break this to you, but religious belief does not constitute a scientific argument.
Evolutionists also argue from a religious belief, i.e. a specific worldview, though the fallacy of pretended neutrality is quite common. Obviously the questions I've asked are philosophical in nature but I don't think you can simply shrug them off by "begging the question" by attempting to undermine my credibility based on my refusal to accept the very subject matter whose entire basis I'm challenging.
aw, crap... yet another who takes Platonic Formalism seriously.
abandon ship, coyoteman!
"How does the evolutionist account for the laws of logic, for transcendental reality, which are crucial to the pursuit of science? He obviously needs them..."
Again, that's a philosophical assertion with no evidence. Also, as aforementioned, no branch of science holds itself to an absolute truth.
"Contrary to the various ad hominem's on this thread, I'm an independent thinker, not a follower. No I'm not the first to ask these questions. Rather, they are new to you because they are not dealt with in own circles."
It's a great thing to be skeptical and critical. But, actually, these claims aren't new - it's a variation of the contingency argument.
"Evolutionists also argue from a religious belief, i.e. a specific worldview, though the fallacy of pretended neutrality is quite common. Obviously the questions I've asked are philosophical in nature but I don't think you can simply shrug them off by 'begging the question' by attempting to undermine my credibility based on my refusal to accept the very subject matter whose entire basis I'm challenging."
Biologists argue using scientific evidence, not philosophical propositions.
Very humbly, not meaning to attack you in way, I would submit that it is your viewpoint that is the illogical one because you cannot give a rational basis for the presuppositions you must make to even do science.
I'm not denying that we can make presuppositions. I'm questioning their rational basis under the two respective worldviews of atheism and Christianity. I am not dealing with other worldviews right now - only those two.
(Yes there are so-called "theistic evolutionists." My reason for selecting atheism is because I thinkg that Darwism fits most consistently into that particular worldview, as Darwinism attempts to provide a rational basis for it, e.g. a way to explain our origins without God).
Contrary to the various ad hominem's on this thread, I'm an independent thinker, not a follower. No I'm not the first to ask these questions. Rather, they are new to you because they are not dealt with in own circles.
None of these disproves evolution. There is no magic creationist or metaphysical bullet to disprove evolution. You have to get in there and argue using the methods and rules of science. If it were otherwise, don't you think it would have been done 100-200 years ago?
I have to think that you are arguing from a religious belief, rather than a scientific background. I am sorry to have to break this to you, but religious belief does not constitute a scientific argument.
Evolutionists also argue from a religious belief, i.e. a specific worldview, though the fallacy of pretended neutrality is quite common. Obviously the questions I've asked are philosophical in nature but I don't think you can simply shrug them off by "begging the question" by attempting to undermine my credibility based on my refusal to accept the very subject matter whose entire basis I'm challenging.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion or a philosophy. No amount of pretending will make it otherwise.
Likewise, no amount of hand waving will make the data all go away. Don't you realize there are tens of thousands of hominid fossils alone? Where did these all come from? They can't all be deformities, frauds, and hoaxes, though one would not realize that to hear some creationists carry on.
I have actually studied the data; I have studied casts of most of the important fossil discoveries, and done several years in the field in grad school. It takes more than a single metaphysical- or religiously-based sentence to overturn all my study, and the efforts of the thousands of more accomplished and better educated scientists who are carrying on research the many fields which make up the science of evolution.
Again, religious belief is not scientific data.
"Darwinism attempts to provide a rational basis for it, e.g. a way to explain our origins without God"
False. If it did, it would violate methodological naturalism. Science is philosophically removed from arguments for or against God.
"I'm questioning their rational basis under the two respective worldviews of atheism and Christianity. I am not dealing with other worldviews right now - only those two."
But, that premise is false as evolutionary theory is not atheistic. Also, philosophical propositions do not affect the reality of the situation. This is why Greek science died - it's not enough to construct logical arguments for or against something; you have to actually go investigate.
For example, quantum mechanics entirely violates causality or cosmological arguments. The philosophical irrationalities though do not render quantum mechanics false because such philosophical propositions are self-consistent axiomatic fields that do not necessarily hold true in the world.
maybe I didn't say it correctly...the definition of science would clearly include the study of creationism. I didn't mean that the word creationism is included in the definition. I'm not misrepresenting the definition at all. All anyone needs do is read the defintion...it's clear for everyone. Your confusion is trying to exclude a very interesting field of science. Can't you be just a little more honest.
Science is the systematic method of explaining natural phenomena observed either directly or indirectly. Anything that is non-naturalistic, not tentative, and unfalsifiable is not science. Therfore, creationism is not science.
...The link to Luther is much more linear, much more pure. ..
It is easy to find really vile ant-Semitism in Luther's writings. It is impossible to find any anti-Semitism in Darwin's.
actually that is not true...there are many fields of science that may not be falsifiable. Please look at the definition of science. It includes alot of stuff. You are believing a false idea.
*bows*
you on night shift duty?
I'm headed bedwards, myself.
don't feed the trolls, and DO keep an eye on Dante - he's really quite good.
please look at the definition of science...it doesn't say that anything that isn't falsifiable isn't included in science. I don't know where you guys get that idea.
Furthermore much the data you've mentioned is therefore suspect. I am hoping, given your personal background, that you do not take any of this discussion personally given its implications. You've been a very good sport, and I appreciate you humoring me with this debate.
Evolutionary theory must make certain assumptions. I've offered a few examples. Without these assumptions the data could not be interpreted to indicate x, y, or z.
Creationism also makes certain assumptions. Only Creationism, however, gives a rational basis for them. In evolutionary theory the assumptions must stand on their own.
I'm sure they're busy quote-mining this thread, if not actually posting to it.
Sorry, but I don't know how to study creationism.
I am an archaeologist, and all my data shows the earth is far older than 6000 or so years, and that there was no global flood. My colleagues all over the world have found the same thing. The initial tenets of creation science fail the test of science. The early geologists came to the same conclusion nearly 200 years ago, and they were creationists working long before Darwin.
The reason science can't study god/gods/creationism/supernatural data is there is no way to detect or measure the phenomena.
And that is what science does, observes, measures, and records natural phenomena, and then theorizes about that data and their interrelationships.
Since you bring up the issue -- "Your confusion is trying to exclude a very interesting field of science" -- just how do you propose that science measures or otherwise scientifically quantifies this supernatural data? The supernatural is that which cannot be measured or otherwise recorded in some manner. Why would you expect science to deal with that in any way? And how?
I think Heinlein said it well:
What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' -- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
ROTFL!
Well and truly stated. Applause in order, especially for the gentility of your style. I sure hope your object poster notices that you made absolutely no insult to matters of God or religion with your succinct post.
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.