Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
TheVeryFirstDinosaur

Young Earth Creationism

167 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Copasetic

Not "creationist nuts" huh?

From the website on its founder:

Dave became frustrated with the long review cycles that are required to publish anything that can be attributed to the Navy. By the time the review cycle is complete, the information is no longer relevant. Since 1983 he has used the pen name, Do-While Jones, to avoid any association between his personal experience and Navy policy.

In 1996, Dave helped found a California non-profit public benefit corporation called Science Against Evolution, of which he is currently the president.

He also volunteers at the Biblical Archeology and Anthropology Museum, and maintains the museum's web site (http://www.BAAMonline.org).

Yes, very honest of you Iams--He's certainly not a "creationist nut" :lol: By the way, the article you link too is by "Do-While Jones" the creationist's "pen name".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

It would be really great not to have assumptions of my level of competence thrown into the discussion. Researching includes a lot of different things, and of all the articles I mentioned, only one was by creationist researchers. And the person overseeing that experiment has a PhD in geology, and the rocks were dated independently by a well-reputed lab. Also, I know a lot about radiometric dating because I've got a degree in archaeology. I took several classes in uni about palaeolithic archaeology and human fossils trying to learn more. My opinions are based on what I read in those classes, plus what I read in creationist circles, plus just thinking a lot about it from a few different angles. I think that'd give a pretty well-informed and well-rounded look at things.

I was searching for a link to the article I mentioned with the volcanic rocks, but found a few others too, so I thought I'd just link the search page so you can have a look at some related articles, if you want. The one I mentioned is the third one down, "The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon 'Ages'" etc.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?f_search_type=articles&f_keyword_any=Excess+argon’%3A+the+‘Archilles’+heel’+of+potassium-&x=21&y=6&module=home&action=submitsearch&search=AdvancedSearch&section=0&f_constraint=both&f_context_all=any&f_context_exact=any&f_context_any=any&f_context_without=any&f_context_any=any

Anyway, the thing is I don't really want to debate it. I just thought it was a good question & thought I'd offer my take on it. If you think something else, that's your prerogative, but this is what I think.

So since you've studied radiometric dating in an academic setting I assume you realize that we do 40Ar/39Ar with 40K/40Ar to tell if the sample is even valid to be dated with 40K/40Ar? And that scientists are aware that you cannot date young rocks with 40K/40Ar? And that all this "proves" is the creationist authors have been dishonest? Hardly the behavior I'd expect from people "crusading" for God.

Please read the link I provided to you. I've read ICRs "research" link you've provided before.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xihui_firefly

Baring that your website is called "ScienceagainstEvolution" (which should clue you in to it being "creationist nuts"), you should read what I have written above--The authors have clearly misrepresented the studies they are "citing"--A second clue perhaps? That's obvious to anyone who looks up the original research :hmm: What is worse though, the "creationist nuts" being dishonest or you perpetuating that dishonesty?

You realize that even if radiometric dating were to be "disproved" tomorrow that would no more affect the modern synthesis (evolutionary theory) than if relativity, gravity or transition state theory were "disproved" tomorrow? Because the modern synthesis is not based upon radiometric dating, its based on molecular biology.....

Please read the Radiometric dating for Christians link Iams, don't fall in with the dishonest "creationist nuts".

Science against evolution doesn't = creationist nuts. Creationists mostly are not nuts, for one, and for two, there are non-creationists who have issues with some of the stuff considered "fact" by most evolutionary scientists. Really I think this kind of thinking is a problem, if a person is actually searching for the truth, shouldn't they be willing to give real consideration to the viewpoints, ideas, and questions of others? Shouldn't they be willing to examine what ideologies are guiding their own science? Personally I think that's a huge flaw of a lot of scientific work- the guys doing it barely give the time of day to thinking about things from a more philosophical angle. It might not matter when you're looking at things like how a certain protein works, or how to build a better computer, but when it comes to things like origins and more theoretical things like that, it's a huge problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xihui_firefly

So since you've studied radiometric dating in an academic setting I assume you realize that we do 40Ar/39Ar with 40K/40Ar to tell if the sample is even valid to be dated with 40K/40Ar? And that scientists are aware that you cannot date young rocks with 40K/40Ar? And that all this "proves" is the creationist authors have been dishonest? Hardly the behavior I'd expect from people "crusading" for God.

Please read the link I provided to you. I've read ICRs "research" link you've provided before.

Yep, I know that. But it doesn't make the creationists dishonest- it comes back to the last thing I posted about thinking outside the box.

Think about it- mostly people send in rocks to be dated BECAUSE they don't know how old they are. So, if you went, say, 1500 years into the future, back to that volcano, let's assume that by that time, there are no records of the eruptions that caused those flows sampled in the article. So they want to know how old they are, take some samples, and send them off to be tested. They come back with ages up to 3.5 million years old. They're going to end up thinking this rock is incredibly old, when really it's only about 1500 years old. What the study does is highlight a philosophical problem in the whole matter that most people gloss over because they assume the dates are always right, simply because the math is right (and even then, it's only right given that all the assumptions preconditioning its rightness are actually correct in reality, and not just in theory).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Science against evolution doesn't = creationist nuts. Creationists mostly are not nuts, for one, and for two, there are non-creationists who have issues with some of the stuff considered "fact" by most evolutionary scientists.

Actually it is "creationist nuts" as stated in their "mission";

Science Against Evolution is a nonprofit public benefit corporation organized and operated exclusively for education purposes within the meaning of Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The specific purpose of this corporation is to teach and disseminate educational materical to the public, including, but not limited to, materials relating to the origin of life, through publications, lectures, or otherwise. Science Against Evolution was incorporated in the State of California on May 16, 1996.

Science Against Evolution is a California Public Benefit Corporation whose objective is to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life.

I'll assume, you having formally studied science, you are aware of why we don't start with our "ending in mind" in science and work to "prove" it. You are aware of this correct?

Really I think this kind of thinking is a problem, if a person is actually searching for the truth, shouldn't they be willing to give real consideration to the viewpoints, ideas, and questions of others? Shouldn't they be willing to examine what ideologies are guiding their own science?

Yes, a person should consider all of these 'scientific viewpoints' and then based the evidence be willing to alter their preconceptions. Scientists can and do consider creationist claims, the problem is when creationist's claims get falsified creationists aren't willing to move on. They are stuck in a precontemplation stage of change....

Personally I think that's a huge flaw of a lot of scientific work- the guys doing it barely give the time of day to thinking about things from a more philosophical angle. It might not matter when you're looking at things like how a certain protein works, or how to build a better computer, but when it comes to things like origins and more theoretical things like that, it's a huge problem.

You only think this because you don't like the implications it has for your preconceived beliefs. You seem to be misunderstanding we don't do science, accept certain data or reject others to reinforce our beliefs. That is why creationists and you have trouble with the "philosophical" implications of some scientific work. Because you are incapable of assimilating such data into your worldview, it must be inherently flawed.

Please read this;

Maxwell suggested a famous demon which could violate the laws of thermodynamics. The demon, sitting between two rooms, controls a gate between the two rooms. When the demon sees a speedy molecule coming his way (from room A), he opens the gate and lets the speedy molecule leave the room and when he sees a slow molecule coming at the gate (from room A), he holds it closed. Oppositely, when he sees a speedy molecule coming at the gate from room B he closes the gate but when he sees a slow molecule from room B coming toward the gate he opens it. In this way, the demon segregates the fast moving molecules into one room from the slow ones in the other. Since temperature of a gas is related to the velocity of the molecules, the demon would increase the temperature of room B and cool room A without any expenditure of energy. And since a temperature difference can be used to create useful work, the demon would create a perpetual motion machine.

Maxwell's demon was shown to fail by Szilard who showed that the demon needed to use light (and expend energy) to determine a fast molecule from a slow one. This energy spent to collect information meant that the demon couldn't violate the 2nd law.

The reason I mention this is because I realized tonight that the YECs have a demon of their own. In a conversation with a YEC, I mentioned certain problems which he needed to address. Instead of addressing them, he claimed that he didn't have time to do the research. With other YECs, I have found that this is not the case (like with sds@mp3.com who refused my offer to discuss the existence of the geologic column by stating "It's on my short list of topics to pursue here. It's not up next, but perhaps before too long." Message-ID: a3bv4t$v2m$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net ) And with other YECs, they claim lack of expertise to evaluate the argument and thus won't make a judgment about the validity of the criticism. Still other YECs refuse to read things that might disagree with them.

Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.

The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!

He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating. He can make people ignore layer after layer of footprints and burrows in the geologic column (see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/burrow.jpg ) and believe that burrowing can occur and animals can walk around unimpeded during a global flood. He can make people think that the sun is shrinking, that the stars are all within 6000 light years of the earth, or that God made pictures in that light of events which never happened. He can make people believe that fossils aren't the remains of animals and are 'petrifactions' placed there by the devil. He can make people ignore modern measurements of continental motion, stellar formation, or biological speciation. He can make people believe that 75,000 feet of sediment over an area 200 by 100 miles can be deposited in a few hundred years, and he can make people believe that Noah trained animals to poop into buckets on command. He can make people deny transitional forms which have traits clearly halfway between two groups. This is a dangerous demon.

But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen.

But unlike Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon doesn't expend any energy--he gets his victim to expend it for him. He can get his victim to expend massive amounts of intellectual energy figuring out how to convince the world that they are wrong. The victim will spend hours reading supportive books or searching through scientific literature noting only those portions which support the YEC position. And the victim will spend lots of energy trying to convince others to come see things the way they do. Thus, the demon gets its victims to spend energy to help it spread the infection.

The demon drives his victim to go to YEC conventions so that the demon can rest. By making his victim be with those equally afflicted, the demon doesn't have to shut the door or even be watchful. This is because it allows the demon time to rest when all that is in the room is supportive data. For the victim, there is comfort in numbers even if they are few.

Those who try to help the poor victims escape the ravages of Morton's demon wear themselves out typing e-mails explaining data and facts which never get through the demon's gate. After years of weariness, the philanthropic individual dies of fatigue. This is oh so devilish a situation!

Morton's Demon

Please also check out the links I've provided on my profile for Christians and Science. You don't need to live in fear of the "philosophical" implications of science.

You also might find this interesting;

For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. Being a physics major in college I had no geology courses. Thus, as a young Christian, when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly. I knew there were problems but I thought I was going to solve them. When I graduated from college with a physics degree, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid a bunch of them off. I did graduate work in philosophy and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. Even after a year, physicists were still unemployable. After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow.(See http://www.seg.org/publications/geoarchive/1996/sep-oct/geo6105r1336.pdf for an article showing an example of a deeply buried karst. For a better but bigger (3.4 meg) version of that paper see http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/97/97ng/ng97_pdf/NG4-1.PDF

One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon. This picture was downloaded from a site which is now gone from the web. It was http://ic.ucsc.edu/~casey/eart168/3DInterpretation/Deltain3d1.gif

Deltain3d1.gif

I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.

In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man--believing two things.

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to

a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

John Morris came to the stage to challenge me. He claimed to have been in the oil industry. I asked him what oil company he had worked for. I am going to let an account of this published in the Skeptical Inquirer in late 86 or early 87. It was written by Robert Schadewald. He writes,

"John Morris went to the microphone and identified himself as a petroleum geologist. He questioned Morton's claim that pollen grains are found in salt formations, and accused Morton of sounding like an anticreationist, raising more problems than his critics could respond to in the time available. Morris said that the ICR staff is working on these problems all the time. He told Morton to quit raising problems and start solving them. "Morton chopped him off at the ankles. Two questions, said Morton: 'What oil company did you work for?' Well, uh, actually Morris never worked for an oil company, but he once taught petroleum engineering at the University of Oklahoma. Second, How old is the Earth?' 'If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.' Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian Heritage College, and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. The were utterly unprepared to face the geologic facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis. Morton neglected to add that ICR is much better known for ignoring or denying problems than dealing with them."

It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an apostate,'(Humphreys) 'a heretic'(Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser'(Henry Morris) "absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful"(John Woodmorappe) 'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) " have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99

Above I say that I with drew from publishing for 10 years. I need to make one item clear. It is true that I published a couple of items in the late 80s. The truth is that these were an edited letter exchange I had with George Howe. When George approached me about the Mountain Building symposium, I told him I didn't want to write it. He said that was ok he would write it, give it to me for ok and then publish it. Since it was merely splicing a bunch of letters together, it was my words, but George's editorship that made that article. To all intents and purposes I was through with young-earth creationist (not ism yet) because I knew that they didn't care about the data.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. During that time, I re-read a book I had reviewed prior to its publication. It was Alan Hayward's Creation/Evolution. Even though I had reviewed it 1984 prior to its publication in 1985, I hadn't been ready for the views he expressed. He presented a wonderful Days of Proclamation view which pulled me back from the edge of atheism. Although I believe Alan applied it to the earth in an unworkable fashion, his view had the power to unite the data with the Scripture, if it was applied differently. That is what I have done with my views. Without that I would now be an atheist. There is much in Alan's book I agree with and much I disagree with but his book was very important in keeping me in the faith. While his book may not have changed the debate totally yet, it did change my life.

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Yep, I know that. But it doesn't make the creationists dishonest- it comes back to the last thing I posted about thinking outside the box.

Think about it- mostly people send in rocks to be dated BECAUSE they don't know how old they are. So, if you went, say, 1500 years into the future, back to that volcano, let's assume that by that time, there are no records of the eruptions that caused those flows sampled in the article. So they want to know how old they are, take some samples, and send them off to be tested. They come back with ages up to 3.5 million years old. They're going to end up thinking this rock is incredibly old, when really it's only about 1500 years old. What the study does is highlight a philosophical problem in the whole matter that most people gloss over because they assume the dates are always right, simply because the math is right (and even then, it's only right given that all the assumptions preconditioning its rightness are actually correct in reality, and not just in theory).

The problem is, the work you are "citing" was done by Andrew Snelling. Someone who does know that 39Ar/40Ar must be done with 40K/40Ar to ensure an accurate date.

Instead what he has done is purposefully misuse 40K/40Ar dating to "prove" it is not accurate. If you don't think that is dishonest, then we obviously are working on different definitions of the word......

That would be like me, Copasetic the medical student, giving someone in the clinic with HIV (a viral infection) a dose of ciprofloxacin (a broad-spec antibiotic, for gram negative bacteria) and when the HIV isn't "cured" posting all over the internet that ciprofloxacin really doesn't work and it therefore invalidates all antibiotics. It really is no different. Here Snelling and other creationists have intentionally misused scientific tools (40K/40Ar dating methods and try and extrapolate it to all radiometric techniques, just as I did with the cipro) to reinforce the prejudice against science to their fellow creationists.

Would you consider me dishonest for that little experiment? (Please really answer that question)

I've read your links and considered creationist arguments-They aren't good arguments and the ones which were at the time, have been falsified since. Don't you ever wonder when you read "creationist literature" why they are abundant with "citations" from the early 20th century? Has that ever crossed your mind?

Its not like this is an isolated incident with Snelling either. Its repeated again and again in creationist literature, where individuals who know contrary data intentionally misrepresent or leave out information to reinforce the beliefs of their fellow creationists. From Behe and Nelson, to Morris and Johnson.

Please read the links I provided to you, especially the radiometric dating for Christians one. What's the worst that could happen?

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Since I have Copasetic blocked due to his apparent need to be demeaning and condescending I can only see his comments when someone else quotes them, so the only reason I saw this was because xihui quoted him.

Copasetic, on 24 October 2010 - 10:34 AM, said:

Baring that your website is called "ScienceagainstEvolution" (which should clue you in to it being "creationist nuts"), you should read what I have written above--The authors have clearly misrepresented the studies they are "citing"--A second clue perhaps? That's obvious to anyone who looks up the original research :hmm: What is worse though, the "creationist nuts" being dishonest or you perpetuating that dishonesty?

Ah, have to attack right away right? They can't simply be skeptics they're CREATIONIST NUTS. This demeans you, because it indicates you have a need to make yourself feel superior because of insecurity. The site is quoting directly from the source material, so if they are misrepresenting something it must be because it was misrepresented when it was originally published.
You realize that even if radiometric dating were to be "disproved" tomorrow that would no more affect the modern synthesis (evolutionary theory) than if relativity, gravity or transition state theory were "disproved" tomorrow? Because the modern synthesis is not based upon radiometric dating, its based on molecular biology.....

Please read the Radiometric dating for Christians link Iams, don't fall in with the dishonest "creationist nuts".

All that molecular biology does is indicate that there are incredible similarities between life forms. There is nothing to prove that this similarity can only be due to mother/daughter relationships, and if radiometric dating is incorrect, there is no way to ascertain the necessary long period of time occurred between the life forms in one strata and another, especially since events like the Mt. St. Helen's eruption and other such catastrophic events have shown stratification does not require extended periods of time to occur. Just for the record, I am not a young Earth Creationist, I am someone who thinks science should not be used to support the religion of materialism, so don't waste your time trying to prove to me the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. I really don't care how old it is.

I read the article, Copa, the question is how does that address the obvious discrepancies scientists encountered with the Apollo 11 lunar samples?

Sample 10017 was dated by five different sources with nineteen different results. Here is how one of those sources tried to spin the results.
The 40K-40Ar ages are for No. 17: whole rock, 2.45 x 109 years; the 4He age, 2.5 x 109 years [u-Th from (2)]; plagioclase, 3.2 x 109 years. For No. 44: whole rock, 3.45 x 109 years; pyroxene, 3.6 x 109 years. For No. 69: whole rock, 2.9 x 109 years. For soil: feldspar glass, 4.9 ± 0.4 x 109 years; brown glass, 1.6 x 109 years. Comparison of mineral and rock data demonstrates gas loss. The plagioclase for No. 17 yields a much higher age than the total rock, indicating Ar loss from the fine-grained, K-rich, interstitial phases. The concordance of He and Ar ages must be fortuitous. The maximum age is equal to the Rb-Sr age, and the general pattern is compatible with the Sr results. Assuming no inheritance of Ar, the age of the brown glass fragment shows that the soil contains particles produced by events of intermediate age (~ 109 years).1

They think that the agreement between the argon age and the helium age is "fortuitous" (dumb luck) because both are too young and can't possibly be right. They blame the error on "gas loss." This is funny because potassium-argon dating on Earth rocks often gives dates that are too old. The "excess argon" problem has been known since 1969. 2 We have talked about it in detail in a previous newsletter. 3 But, perhaps in 1970, it wasn't well known to the scientists studying the moon rocks. Here's what they said.

Abstract. Seven crystalline rock samples returned by Apollo 11 have been analyzed in detail by means of the 40Ar-39Ar dating technique. The extent of radiogenic argon loss in these samples ranges from 7 percent to >48 percent. Potassium-argon ages, corrected for the effects of this loss, cluster relatively closely around the value of 3.7 x 109 years. Most of the vulcanism associated with the formation of the Mare Tranquillitatis presumably occurred around 3.7 x 109 years ago. A major cause of the escape of gas from lunar rock is probably the impact eventwhich ejected the rock from its place of origin to its place of discovery. Upper limits for the times at which these impact events occurred have been estimated.4

Let's not let that slip by unnoticed. The uncorrected potassium-argon dates were so young that they assumed almost half (48%) of the argon was lost in a speculative "impact event." But even when they assume that the amount of argon in the rock was almost double what they actually measured, they only come up with 3.7 billion years, which still isn't old enough.

Don't let us put words in their mouths. Here is what they actually said.

The assumptions are made that the rock was free of argon when formed and that it has quantitatively retained 40Ar, from the decay of 40K, since that time. The assumption of quantitative argon retention is particularly inappropriate for the lunar rocks. The rocks returned to earth have been picked up loose from the surface of the moon, presumably at some distance from their place of origin. The presence of shock effects in some, if not all, of the crystalline rocks indicates that high-energy events, possibly meteorite impacts, may have transported the rocks from their place of origin to their place of discovery and it is very probable that argon loss occurred at the time of transfer. In an attempt to estimate the extent of gas loss and to apply a suitable correction to the potassium-argon age, an activation technique, the 40Ar-39Ar method, has been applied to seven of the crystalline lunar rocks. 5

If they hadn't "known" the "true" age of the rocks is 4.4 billion years, would they have made these "corrections?" Of course not! They are just twisting the facts to fit their prejudice. But it gets better. Here's the abstract by a different team of scientists.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder

Answerless Logic? Do you have a answer for the question I asked?

What was your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

RHETORIC!!!!!!

We should be using our brain power to figure out the true answers, not base our lives and intelligence from some crap filled book of poems and ANALogies..

Pun overly intended!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Iamson and Copasetic can we not have this turn in to a personal battleground, Iamson if you have someone on ignore then don't call that person out in a thread to announce the fact, all that will do is inflame the situation further.

Copasetic it might be an idea to avoid calling people "creationist nuts" wherever possible - its an unneccessarily inflammatory term that's only going to wind people up and appears to be doing just that.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

I'm all for one to believe anything they want! I just feel bad for the ones who are very uninformed and left clueless. In turn, it makes some people spout from the wrong orifice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Since I have Copasetic blocked due to his apparent need to be demeaning and condescending I can only see his comments when someone else quotes them, so the only reason I saw this was because xihui quoted him.

Ah, have to attack right away right? They can't simply be skeptics they're CREATIONIST NUTS. This demeans you, because it indicates you have a need to make yourself feel superior because of insecurity. The site is quoting directly from the source material, so if they are misrepresenting something it must be because it was misrepresented when it was originally published.

I didn't "attack right away". I pointed out the scientific and academic mistakes they made. The "creationist nuts" wasn't my idea. You setup the dichotomy;

"The articles have footnotes showing which peer-reviewed article the information originally came from, so it's not "creationist nuts" saying these things, it's scientific information and all the linked article does is provide explanations/clarifications."

Suggesting that if they weren't being scientific then they are "creationist nuts", hence my use of "" around "creationist nuts". I apologize if that offends you, I only sought to translate into your own language ^_^ For the record I don't think they are "creationist nuts", I think they don't know what they are talking about and/or are dishonest with the way they "freely present 'scientific' information to the public".

On the article itself, You can "quote directly source material" and still misrepresent it. Allow me to demonstrate for you Iams, I wouldn't want you thinking I'm making this up as I go along. Let's stick with my antibiotic example for a moment; Supposing that I gave some HIV patients ceftazidime and low and behold, they remained sick.

Now I go off on a binge on the internets espousing the philosophical dangers of letting people use antibiotics. Since this one antibiotic didn't work on this infection, clearly antibiotics are not safe and this calls into question all of "scientist's" (who do these scientists think they are anyway?) results regarding antibiotics.

I can even support my stance with scientific research;

All strains were resistant to ceftazidime, gentamicin, and tobramycin; 96% were resistant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and 41% to ciprofloxacin hydrochloride
1

Clearly, the "theory" that antibiotics kills bacteria is in great jeopardy in the scientific community and scientists themselves cannot even agree upon antibiotics working. In fact this "antibiotic theory" is quickly being left by the wayside by real scientists, such as ones working at the Institute for Anti-Antibiotic research (IAR ^_^ ).

"Antibiotic theory" is clearly a theory in jeopardy.

You see how silly and easy that was to misrepresent work? Was it a case of the "original publication misrepresenting" the data as you claim? No. And this is why you fail at assimilating scientific knowledge. Because you are willing to believe these creationist authors, despite me showing above they have quote-mined and presented the data disingenuously.

**And just in case you or anyone was about to fall for my "anti-antibiotics" theory the context is from;

Between November 1990 and October 1992, 55 hospital patients infected or colonized with ceftazidime-resistant E coli, K pneumoniae, or both were identified. Of the 35 admitted from 8 nursing homes, 31 harbored the resistant strain on admission. All strains were resistant to ceftazidime, gentamicin, and tobramycin; 96% were resistant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and 41% to ciprofloxacin hydrochloride. In a case-control study, 24 nursing home patients colonized with resistant strains on hospital admission were compared with 16 nursing home patients who were not colonized on hospital admission; independent risk factors for colonization included poor functional level, presence of a gastrostomy tube or decubitus ulcers, and prior receipt of ciprofloxacin and/or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. In a nursing home point-prevalence survey, 18 of 39 patients were colonized with ceftazidime-resistant E coli; prior receipt of ciprofloxacin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and presence of a gastrostomy tube were independent predictors of resistance. Plasmid studies on isolates from 20 hospital and nursing home patients revealed that 17 had a common 54-kilobase plasmid, which conferred ceftazidime resistance via the ESBL TEM-10, and mediated resistance to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, and tobramycin; all 20 isolates harbored this ESBL. Molecular fingerprinting showed 7 different strain types of resistant K pneumoniae and E coli distributed among the nursing homes.

They were of course talking about extended-spectrum beta-lactamase bacteria which get resistances to antibiotics like ciprofloxacin through evolution. There research doesn't suggest that it should work on viruses (the causative agent of HIV) any more than your "sources" articles suggest the moon is really young like Peter Pan. Both myself (above) and your source have done something called "quote-mining" to "prove a point", by taking information out of context and not presenting the readers with the rest of the information.

I believe you are a pretty honest guy Iams, so I'll assume your naivety toward your own source was an honest mistake and not an act of intentionally misrepresenting something.

All that molecular biology does is indicate that there are incredible similarities between life forms. There is nothing to prove that this similarity can only be due to mother/daughter relationships,

Incorret-o-mundo! :lol:

You can go back and read the post I made to Jor-el for a free lesson on reproductive biology. If you really want to learn it. Methinks more likely you don't and won't. We've been down this road before when you didn't have me on ignore, remember how that ended? I do here is your quote in the topic;

Sorry... it's YOUR fault you know! disgust.gif Replying to your posts takes a lot of brain power

That was of course, shortly before you put me on ignore. Ignoring other members so that you don't have to learn something new or address a particularly pesky point for your worldview seems to be your forte.

and if radiometric dating is incorrect, there is no way to ascertain the necessary long period of time occurred between the life forms in one strata and another,

Again, radiometric dating and evolutionary theory are two independent scientific theories. Neither depends on the other. One depends on atomic theory and the behavior of nuclear decay, while the other depends on how differential survival and reproduction act upon variation over time. That's really not a hard concept to get.

especially since events like the Mt. St. Helen's eruption and other such catastrophic events have shown stratification does not require extended periods of time to occur.

No, now you are being dishonest. Stratification is not determined by radiometric dating. Incorrectly dating rocks from the eruption with K/Ar dating tells us nothing about stratification, it does tell us that if you use K/Ar dating without Ar/Ar dating you can produce a date much older than a rock really is and that we should probably not trust dates of rocks gathered by amateurs where Ar/Ar dating wasn't done.

As scientist are more clever than you give them credit for, this isn't really any kind of news and anytime we date things with K/Ar we date with Ar/Ar as well. We also confirm dates with other isotopic dating technique and other absolute dating methods.

Just for the record, I am not a young Earth Creationist, I am someone who thinks science should not be used to support the religion of materialism, so don't waste your time trying to prove to me the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. I really don't care how old it is.

Just for the record my religion isn't materialism, nor is my religion relevant to a discussion of scientific data. It seems that yours (and other creationists) is, because as Xihui so nicely pointed out for us--Your problem is with the philosophical implications of what science discovers. You may believe in burning books Iamson, I don't however and in science we don't get to choose to throw out data and only accept data we "like" the "implications" of.

I read the article, Copa, the question is how does that address the obvious discrepancies scientists encountered with the Apollo 11 lunar samples?

Uh, duh?

I asked you, do you believe that all the rocks on earth should be as old as the earth itself? I mean really Iams......

And I know you didn't read the article, because it specifically address (at the bottom in the Q&A) the creationists of "scienceagainstevolution.org"'s "problems" with radiometric dating....

Maybe someone will be nice enough to 'quote' this so you can just happen to read it....

1. Janis Wiener; John P. Quinn; Patricia A. Bradford; Richard V. Goering; Catherine Nathan; Karen Bush; Robert A. Weinstein

Multiple Antibiotic-Resistant Klebsiella and Escherichia coli in Nursing Homes

JAMA. 1999;281(6):517-523.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Iamson and Copasetic can we not have this turn in to a personal battleground, Iamson if you have someone on ignore then don't call that person out in a thread to announce the fact, all that will do is inflame the situation further.

Copasetic it might be an idea to avoid calling people "creationist nuts" wherever possible - its an unneccessarily inflammatory term that's only going to wind people up and appears to be doing just that.

Thank you.

Roger, I apologize for any offense I caused to any creationist readers. My contention was not that they were "nuts", as I explained to Iamson above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Actually, as discussed in another thread, due to the inherent limits of science, we cannot use science to determine what happened before the Big Bang. Sure we can use information contained within the universe to make certain guesses, but as well-educated and as well-accepted as they may become, there will be no way to use science to tell whether they are anywhere near the truth or not.

Actually, as discussed in the other thread, you have no knowledge about the exterior of the universe and therefore can not say definitively that science can not study it.

Of course it isn't random, someone had to place the ball at the top of the hill. Not at all the same as saying something was there for no discernible reason and then for absolutely no reason it exploded.

Not at all. no one need place the ball there for it to fall. Whether someone placed it or it got tossed up there as a result of a natural process or whether it just spontaneously appeared there would make no difference in the result.

And as we discussed, if the existence of god does not presuppose a creator, then the existence of the universe does not presuppose a creator. Claiming otherwise would be either idiotic, hypocritical or illogical. Pick whichever one applies.

As for radiometric dating, I spent a lot of time researching and thinking on the matter, and while I don't completely understand it- really nobody does- I've come to a few conclusions I think are worth considering:

How arrogant.

Just because you dont understand it doesnt mean others dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Actually, as discussed in the other thread, you have no knowledge about the exterior of the universe and therefore can not say definitively that science can not study it.

Ah, but I don't need to have knowledge of what is outside of the universe. All we have to know is the necessary, built-in limits of science. The universe is that in which the laws of nature apply, and therefore can be studied using science. Therefore, anything which is outside the universe is "outside" not because it's on the other side of some wall, but because the laws of nature do not apply. If the laws of nature do not apply, then it lies outside the purview of science.
Not at all. no one need place the ball there for it to fall. Whether someone placed it or it got tossed up there as a result of a natural process or whether it just spontaneously appeared there would make no difference in the result.

We agree there had to be a cause that resulted in the ball being there whether someone specifically places it there or whether it landed there as the result of someone tossing it there. The ball being on top of the hill is not a causeless effect anymore than the Big Bang is a causeless effect.
And as we discussed, if the existence of god does not presuppose a creator
:huh: Huh? I'm not even sure what this means. I don't remember discussing that, but the God I'm talking about is the Creator, so His existence does presuppose a creator.
then the existence of the universe does not presuppose a creator.
The existence of the universe presupposes an external cause.
Claiming otherwise would be either idiotic, hypocritical or illogical. Pick whichever one applies.
Why? Because you say so? Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Therefore, anything which is outside the universe is "outside" not because it's on the other side of some wall, but because the laws of nature do not apply. If the laws of nature do not apply, then it lies outside the purview of science.

How do you know the laws of nature do not apply? This is the problem with your thinking, consistently. You come to a conclusion before you have any evidence one way or another.

We agree there had to be a cause that resulted in the ball being there whether someone specifically places it there or whether it landed there as the result of someone tossing it there.

I never said someone tossed it. It very well could have been tossed up as part of some debris in some sort of natural event.

Either way, you just said the "laws of nature" do not apply outside of the universe, hence you can not therfore argue that causality applies, because causality is a natural law which applies within the universe. It would be hypocritical then to say that the big bang had to have a cause.

Huh? I'm not even sure what this means. I don't remember discussing that, but the God I'm talking about is the Creator, so His existence does presuppose a creator.

Let me elaborate: If god can exist outside of the universe and not have a creator, then you can not argue that whatever caused the big bang (if anything even did) must have a creator. Hypocracy at its best.

The existence of the universe presupposes an external cause.

Nope! You already said that whatever is outside of the universe doesnt need to obey causality. If the universe exists "in" something exterior to it, then it whatever it exists in, as you were happy to mention, does not need to obey the laws of nature.

Why? Because you say so?

Yes. Satisfied? No, but I dont care about your satisfaction really. You approach every situation the same way, it seems: "If it doesnt agree with my religious beliefs then it is wrong", and despite people explaining evidence to you, you continually deny it. You act as if you have a superior understanding over many different aspects of science when it is plainly obvious that you dont even have the required knowledge. You come on her claiming, again and again, the same arguments from a point of "authority" because you believe you "understand" the subjects after "researching" them for a couple of weeks over the internet... Well I've got news for you, buddy... People spend YEARS and YEARS studying these subjects. 4 years of formal studying with qualified professors, teaching you directly and not "stitching" together quotes from various people... and that is for just a basic understanding of the subject. From there, theres even more years of studying to obtain a post-grad. You can not hope to fully understand the subject simply from reading up on it on the internet a couple of times, yet you will still fight zealously that your "interpretation" is correct. Hence, your opinion on the matter really means very little in all honesty.

I'm tired of "appeasing" everyone and pretending everyone's opinion is just as valid as the other. I'm sorry, but if you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary, or any other belief along these lines then your opinion is just as idiotic as if you were to come here and claim that 1+1 =/= 2 and it will not be treated on equal footing. If you have new evidence to present, then present it and it will be analyzed objectively, but if it is faulty and incorrect, then the opinion still remains idiotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

How do you know the laws of nature do not apply? This is the problem with your thinking, consistently. You come to a conclusion before you have any evidence one way or another.

Did you not read the post you're quoting? I'm not saying anything incredibly difficult, it's simple REASON. The universe is that in which the laws of nature apply, (this is just reasonable, if the laws of nature apply to the area you are applying them to, then it is part of the universe) and therefore can be studied using science (again, this is just using reason, science is a tool dependent on the laws of nature, if the laws are extant, then science works). Therefore, anything which is outside the universe is "outside" not because it's on the other side of some wall, but because the laws of nature do not apply (more simple reason, if the universe is anywhere where the laws of nature apply, then any "location" where the laws of nature do not apply is "outside" the universe). If the laws of nature do not apply, then it lies outside the purview of science (one final bit of reason since science is dependent on the laws of nature, if the laws of nature do not apply, then science will not function). No weird thinking, just reason.
I never said someone tossed it. It very well could have been tossed up as part of some debris in some sort of natural event.
There would still have to be a cause that resulted in the ball ending up at the top of the hill. Unless you want to say the ball suddenly appeared from nowhere with no one or no thing acting on it to cause it to appear there. However, at that point you would be proposing a supernatural event as the cause... which I am perfectly fine with, but I don't think that is beneficial to what you want to propose. The presence of the ball at the top of the hill is not a causeless effect.
Either way, you just said the "laws of nature" do not apply outside of the universe, hence you can not therfore argue that causality applies, because causality is a natural law which applies within the universe. It would be hypocritical then to say that the big bang had to have a cause.
I am not saying causality applies outside the universe, I am saying causality applies TO the universe. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe had a beginning, the beginning is an event, an effect, and every effect requires a cause, therefore, the beginning of the universe requires a cause, and that cause has to "exist" outside the universe because the universe did not exist prior to the cause. This is simple reasoning.
Let me elaborate: If god can exist outside of the universe and not have a creator, then you can not argue that whatever caused the big bang (if anything even did) must have a creator. Hypocracy at its best.
You're right, I can not argue that whatever caused the big bang must have a creator (those are your words). I am arguing that the big bang had a cause not that what caused the big bang had a cause. Given that the universe had a beginning (according to the big bang theory) which is by definition an effect, and given that effect has a cause, then the universe must have a cause, and since nothing in the universe existed before the beginning of the universe, this cause must exist outside the universe.
Nope! You already said that whatever is outside of the universe doesnt need to obey causality. If the universe exists "in" something exterior to it, then it whatever it exists in, as you were happy to mention, does not need to obey the laws of nature.
But we know (according to the Big Bang Theory) that the universe had a beginning, if it had a beginning something had to make it begin, and since nothing existed IN the universe since the universe had not yet begun, whatever caused the universe to begin is outside the universe. The BEGINNING of the universe presupposes a cause to the universe. This is simple reason.
Yes. Satisfied? No, but I dont care about your satisfaction really. You approach every situation the same way, it seems: "If it doesnt agree with my religious beliefs then it is wrong", and despite people explaining evidence to you, you continually deny it. You act as if you have a superior understanding over many different aspects of science when it is plainly obvious that you dont even have the required knowledge. You come on her claiming, again and again, the same arguments from a point of "authority" because you believe you "understand" the subjects after "researching" them for a couple of weeks over the internet... Well I've got news for you, buddy... People spend YEARS and YEARS studying these subjects. 4 years of formal studying with qualified professors, teaching you directly and not "stitching" together quotes from various people... and that is for just a basic understanding of the subject. From there, theres even more years of studying to obtain a post-grad. You can not hope to fully understand the subject simply from reading up on it on the internet a couple of times, yet you will still fight zealously that your "interpretation" is correct. Hence, your opinion on the matter really means very little in all honesty.

I'm tired of "appeasing" everyone and pretending everyone's opinion is just as valid as the other. I'm sorry, but if you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary, or any other belief along these lines then your opinion is just as idiotic as if you were to come here and claim that 1+1 =/= 2 and it will not be treated on equal footing. If you have new evidence to present, then present it and it will be analyzed objectively, but if it is faulty and incorrect, then the opinion still remains idiotic.

Ah, and here come the ad hominem attacks!

I'm using simple reason, no college degree required, just the ability to think through something. Can you have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks?

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Did you not read the post you're quoting? I'm not saying anything incredibly difficult, it's simple REASON. The universe is that in which the laws of nature apply, (this is just reasonable, if the laws of nature apply to the area you are applying them to, then it is part of the universe) and therefore can be studied using science (again, this is just using reason, science is a tool dependent on the laws of nature, if the laws are extant, then science works). Therefore, anything which is outside the universe is "outside" not because it's on the other side of some wall, but because the laws of nature do not apply (more simple reason, if the universe is anywhere where the laws of nature apply, then any "location" where the laws of nature do not apply is "outside" the universe). If the laws of nature do not apply, then it lies outside the purview of science (one final bit of reason since science is dependent on the laws of nature, if the laws of nature do not apply, then science will not function). No weird thinking, just reason.

No. Once again, you are coming to a conclusion without evidence.

The bolded part should read "Therefore, anything which is outside of the universe may or may not follow laws of nature."

We know the universe follows the laws of nature, we do not know whether the outside of the universe does. it may, it may not. We don't currently know. It may follow the same laws of nature, it may follow different laws of nature, or it may follow no laws at all. If its one of the first 2, then it can be studied by science.

There would still have to be a cause that resulted in the ball ending up at the top of the hill. Unless you want to say the ball suddenly appeared from nowhere with no one or no thing acting on it to cause it to appear there. However, at that point you would be proposing a supernatural event as the cause... which I am perfectly fine with, but I don't think that is beneficial to what you want to propose. The presence of the ball at the top of the hill is not a causeless effect.

The cause, however, could have been natural and nothing to do with anything intelligent.

I am not saying causality applies outside the universe, I am saying causality applies TO the universe. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe had a beginning, the beginning is an event, an effect, and every effect requires a cause, therefore, the beginning of the universe requires a cause, and that cause has to "exist" outside the universe because the universe did not exist prior to the cause. This is simple reasoning.

No. Causality applies within the universe, as you are so fond of pointing out. The big bang theory is about the start of the universe, true... however, any "event" that would cause it would not be able to originate within the causal universe (since the universe had not been created yet), hence this "event" would need to exist outside of the universe. If it exists outside of the universe, causality may not be followed and thus an event may not be necessary... or if there way an event, there may not be anything which caused the event to cause the universe to expand.

But we know (according to the Big Bang Theory) that the universe had a beginning, if it had a beginning something had to make it begin, and since nothing existed IN the universe since the universe had not yet begun, whatever caused the universe to begin is outside the universe. The BEGINNING of the universe presupposes a cause to the universe. This is simple reason.

Perhaps that is your problem? You're trying to use "simple" reason to something that requires "complex" reason. The singularity that was the universe "before" the big bang existed in something outside of the universe (since the universe did not exist yet). If the singularity can cause itself to expand (in other words, the universe can cause itself to expand), then that would defeat your argument right then and there... so we'll assume this is not the case. The other argument for causality of the big bang would thus require something outside of the singularity to cause the singularity to expand... however, since the singularity exists in a realm outside of the universe, causality may not apply, which would mean that the singularity could expand without cause.

Now, if we go on to consider that time is a dimension within the universe and not outside of it, then this would simply mean that the singularity was "primed" for expansion at t=0, and there was no cause.

I'm using simple reason, no college degree required, just the ability to think through something. Can you have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks?

Perhaps if you had a college degree you would understand how "simple reason" does not apply in a complex universe.

If we were to approach everything with your "simple reason", then quantum mechanics would not currently exist. QM is beyond "simple reason".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

No. Once again, you are coming to a conclusion without evidence.

The bolded part should read "Therefore, anything which is outside of the universe may or may not follow laws of nature."

Since no one knows what is outside the universe (at least no one involved in this discussion, we can not examine evidence. But we can use reason to make some determinations.
We know the universe follows the laws of nature, we do not know whether the outside of the universe does. it may, it may not. We don't currently know. It may follow the same laws of nature, it may follow different laws of nature, or it may follow no laws at all. If its one of the first 2, then it can be studied by science.
Apparently we are not defining what "outside the universe" is. I am basing my definition on what we know which is that the laws of nature apply within the universe, so where the laws don't apply is "outside." What is your definition?
The cause, however, could have been natural and nothing to do with anything intelligent.
OK, but now you've completely changed what you initially said which was:
If you place a ball on a slope, is it a "random happening" that it rolls downhill? No, it infact isnt random at all. It has no choice, hence its not random nor are the chances anything less than 100% that it happen.
No. Causality applies within the universe, as you are so fond of pointing out. The big bang theory is about the start of the universe, true... however, any "event" that would cause it would not be able to originate within the causal universe (since the universe had not been created yet), hence this "event" would need to exist outside of the universe. If it exists outside of the universe, causality may not be followed and thus an event may not be necessary... or if there way an event, there may not be anything which caused the event to cause the universe to expand.
So, you are proposing a causeless effect?
Perhaps that is your problem? You're trying to use "simple" reason to something that requires "complex" reason. The singularity that was the universe "before" the big bang existed in something outside of the universe (since the universe did not exist yet). If the singularity can cause itself to expand (in other words, the universe can cause itself to expand), then that would defeat your argument right then and there... so we'll assume this is not the case. The other argument for causality of the big bang would thus require something outside of the singularity to cause the singularity to expand... however, since the singularity exists in a realm outside of the universe, causality may not apply, which would mean that the singularity could expand without cause.

Now, if we go on to consider that time is a dimension within the universe and not outside of it, then this would simply mean that the singularity was "primed" for expansion at t=0, and there was no cause.

I'm sorry, you were saying something I was proposing was hypocritical and yet you are now seriously proposing a self-causing effect and you consider that more plausible than an intelligent creator?
Perhaps if you had a college degree you would understand how "simple reason" does not apply in a complex universe.

If we were to approach everything with your "simple reason", then quantum mechanics would not currently exist. QM is beyond "simple reason".

I have a college degree, I was pointing out one is not needed to use reason. Did I say everything could be approached with simple reason? No, I did not. I'm pointing out that for the discussion we are having, since we do not have evidence we can use reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Since no one knows what is outside the universe (at least no one involved in this discussion, we can not examine evidence. But we can use reason to make some determinations.

Since we have no evidence, reason says that we can not make a determination.

Apparently we are not defining what "outside the universe" is. I am basing my definition on what we know which is that the laws of nature apply within the universe, so where the laws don't apply is "outside." What is your definition?

Well, if you're going to discuss science, you cant just go around redefining everything willy-nilly just to support your argument. It is the totallity of physical matter and energy. Science does not define it as "The only area in which the laws of nature apply".

OK, but now you've completely changed what you initially said which was:

Irrelevant. My point still stands. If a ball were, for whatever reason, at the top of a slope (whether it be placed there intelligently, naturally, or just appeared there without cause), it is not a "random happening" that it rolls down. No matter why its up there, it will roll down. Do you disagree?

So, you are proposing a causeless effect?

I am proposing that we can not make any determination as to whether a causeless effect exists or doesnt outside of the universe.

Afterall, you're proposing the same thing with your idea of "god". God is causeless in the sense that nothing created god. It would be hypocritical to say that everything must be created/every creation has a cause, except god.

I'm sorry, you were saying something I was proposing was hypocritical and yet you are now seriously proposing a self-causing effect and you consider that more plausible than an intelligent creator?

A self causing effect is the same thing as your god, except it makes no statement as to whether there was intelligence or not.

If you say everything must have a beginning (thus a cause), then god must have a beginning (and thus a cause). A=B. You can not say B=2 and A does not equal 2, and you can not say that everything must have a beginning and a cause except god.

I have a college degree, I was pointing out one is not needed to use reason. Did I say everything could be approached with simple reason? No, I did not. I'm pointing out that for the discussion we are having, since we do not have evidence we can use reason.

And I am pointing out that it is highly arrogant for someone without an education on a specific subject to claim that those who have studied and educated themselves on the matter for years and years are wrong, simply because what they are saying defies your "simple reason".

It'd be akin to arguing with a physicist the nature of an electron, and telling him that he is wrong about what he says because "reason" clearly points to an electron being a particle.

If you could use "simple reason" to discredit what people like Hawking have theorised about for years... if you could use your "simple reason" to make all these determinations of how things work, then people would not need to study these subjects for years upon years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Since we have no evidence, reason says that we can not make a determination.

I would have to disagree.
Well, if you're going to discuss science, you cant just go around redefining everything willy-nilly just to support your argument. It is the totallity of physical matter and energy. Science does not define it as "The only area in which the laws of nature apply".
Are you defining the universe or what is outside the universe? I'm sorry, I'm confused, please clarify.
Irrelevant. My point still stands. If a ball were, for whatever reason, at the top of a slope (whether it be placed there intelligently, naturally, or just appeared there without cause), it is not a "random happening" that it rolls down. No matter why its up there, it will roll down. Do you disagree?

If it was placed there intelligently then it would not be a random happening, if it just happened to land there by random chance then it would roll down as a random happening wouldn't it?
I am proposing that we can not make any determination as to whether a causeless effect exists or doesnt outside of the universe.

Afterall, you're proposing the same thing with your idea of "god". God is causeless in the sense that nothing created god. It would be hypocritical to say that everything must be created/every creation has a cause, except god.

As I have stated before I am not stating that everything must have a cause, only that everything in the universe, including it's beginning must have a cause.

A self causing effect is the same thing as your god, except it makes no statement as to whether there was intelligence or not.

If you say everything must have a beginning (thus a cause), then god must have a beginning (and thus a cause). A=B. You can not say B=2 and A does not equal 2, and you can not say that everything must have a beginning and a cause except god.

You keep trying to put words in my mouth, I have never said everything must have a cause.

And I am pointing out that it is highly arrogant for someone without an education on a specific subject to claim that those who have studied and educated themselves on the matter for years and years are wrong, simply because what they are saying defies your "simple reason".

When have I said that?
If you could use "simple reason" to discredit what people like Hawking have theorised about for years... if you could use your "simple reason" to make all these determinations of how things work, then people would not need to study these subjects for years upon years.

Which subjects are we talking about. You seem to be accusing me of something I have not done. I'm having a discussion with you, not Hawking and I am mainly pointing out that we can make some reasonable determinations even if we can't use science due to it's limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

I would have to disagree.

You can disagree all you want. There's also people who disagree with wave-particle duality.

Just remember, progress is not made by saying "We can't do it", progress is made by saying "How can we do it?"

If it was placed there intelligently then it would not be a random happening, if it just happened to land there by random chance then it would roll down as a random happening wouldn't it?

No, because we are talking about the act of it rolling downhill, not the circumstances that lead to it being at the top of the hill. The ball will roll down the slope because thats what the laws of physics dictate will happen. The ball has no other choice.

As I have stated before I am not stating that everything must have a cause, only that everything in the universe, including it's beginning must have a cause.

But there was no universe at the time of and before the big bang, hence causality may not apply.

But fine... lets say that something had to cause the universe. Fine. What if, say, something we'll call "particle A", which exists outside of the universe, collided with the singularity and that is what caused the expansion. Would that satisfy your need for a cause?

When have I said that?

When you say "Simple reason" this and "simple reason" that. This isnt a matter of "simple reason" by any means.

Infact, "reason" is something that would not even apply to the exterior of the universe, if there are no natural laws that govern the outside of the universe.

Which subjects are we talking about. You seem to be accusing me of something I have not done.

Im not accusing you of anything. I'm saying your whole argument is meaningless and irrelevant. You do not have the necessary education and knowledge to debate the subjects you debate, yet you refuse to accept that your layman knowledge of the subject can not contend against the knowledge of the brightest most educated minds in science... both on the subject of the universe and its origins aswell as other subjects which I have seen you argue.

I'm having a discussion with you, not Hawking and I am mainly pointing out that we can make some reasonable determinations even if we can't use science due to it's limitations.

We can not make any reasonable determinations if we can not use science. "Reasonable determinations" are made based on pattern, and pattern is due to laws which determine when something can or can not happen. If science isn't applicable, it is because there are no laws which govern a system, and therefore "reason" does not apply either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

You can disagree all you want. There's also people who disagree with wave-particle duality.

Just remember, progress is not made by saying "We can't do it", progress is made by saying "How can we do it?"

Progress is also not made when no one asks, "Is this actually right?"
No, because we are talking about the act of it rolling downhill, not the circumstances that lead to it being at the top of the hill. The ball will roll down the slope because thats what the laws of physics dictate will happen. The ball has no other choice.
OK, I see what you're saying .
But there was no universe at the time of and before the big bang, hence causality may not apply.

But fine... lets say that something had to cause the universe. Fine. What if, say, something we'll call "particle A", which exists outside of the universe, collided with the singularity and that is what caused the expansion. Would that satisfy your need for a cause?

No, I don't think it would, but that may be because I am starting from the stance that there was an intelligent creator.
When you say "Simple reason" this and "simple reason" that. This isnt a matter of "simple reason" by any means.

Infact, "reason" is something that would not even apply to the exterior of the universe, if there are no natural laws that govern the outside of the universe.

If you noticed, I was stating that the universe includes any "place" where the laws of nature apply, so it was only reasonable to see the "outside" as a "place" where those laws do not apply.
Im not accusing you of anything. I'm saying your whole argument is meaningless and irrelevant. You do not have the necessary education and knowledge to debate the subjects you debate, yet you refuse to accept that your layman knowledge of the subject can not contend against the knowledge of the brightest most educated minds in science... both on the subject of the universe and its origins aswell as other subjects which I have seen you argue.
OK, so then neither I nor anyone else on the forums should be discussing anything we are not specifically educated in. This is a discussion forum on unexplained mysteries, and we are all discussing topics we are interested in. If you are going to take this stance, then you shouldn't be arguing this topic either.
We can not make any reasonable determinations if we can not use science. "Reasonable determinations" are made based on pattern, and pattern is due to laws which determine when something can or can not happen. If science isn't applicable, it is because there are no laws which govern a system, and therefore "reason" does not apply either.

I have to disagree, science depends on reason, reason is not limited to science. I maintain we can use reason to make some determinations for the purpose of the discussion. I'm not planning to submit any of this to a peer-reviewed journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Progress is also not made when no one asks, "Is this actually right?"

Is that a typo? I'd say progress is made that way.

No, I don't think it would, but that may be because I am starting from the stance that there was an intelligent creator.

Well why not? In that case, you would have an event which caused the big bang, and since the event, this "particle A" exists outside of the universe, it doesnt need to be created.

Why can this not be the case, but an intelligent creator can?

If you noticed, I was stating that the universe includes any "place" where the laws of nature apply, so it was only reasonable to see the "outside" as a "place" where those laws do not apply

But thats not how the universe is defined, so it is irrelevant. Such a place as you define may or may not even exist...

OK, so then neither I nor anyone else on the forums should be discussing anything we are not specifically educated in. This is a discussion forum on unexplained mysteries, and we are all discussing topics we are interested in. If you are going to take this stance, then you shouldn't be arguing this topic either.

What I'm saying is that sometimes you have to accept that you don't have the necessary knowledge to properly argue a subject. What "makes sense" to you very well may not actually make sense, based on the vaste knowledge available.

I dont tell a surgeon how to do surgery, for example, because I have no knowledge on the matter. I can argue all I want until I'm blue in the face about how its "bad" to cut people open, but it doesnt make me right.

I have to disagree, science depends on reason, reason is not limited to science. I maintain we can use reason to make some determinations for the purpose of the discussion. I'm not planning to submit any of this to a peer-reviewed journal.

Well, lets approach this point this way: What is reason? How is reason used to make determinations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Is that a typo? I'd say progress is made that way.

I think I ended up with a double negative. What I mean to say is that progress is helped by having someone question the direction being taken to insure it's actually leading somewhere.
Well why not? In that case, you would have an event which caused the big bang, and since the event, this "particle A" exists outside of the universe, it doesnt need to be created.

Why can this not be the case, but an intelligent creator can?

Because it raises more questions than it answers. Where did "particle A" come from? Why and how did it activate the Big Bang? What evidence do we have for "particle A"? The most obvious reply I can see for these questions is "From the same place your creator comes from." But that answer means there is no reason not to credit a creator other than personal preference.
But thats not how the universe is defined, so it is irrelevant. Such a place as you define may or may not even exist...
The Britanica Concise Encyclopedia defines it in this way: "Whole cosmic system of matter and energy of which Earth is a part. Its main constituents are the galaxies, within which are stars and stellar groupings and nebulae (see nebula). Earth's Sun is one star among the billions of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. All atoms, subatomic particles, and everything they compose are also part of the universe. The universe is governed by four fundamental forces: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and gravitation. Numerous theories have been proposed for the origin and structure of the universe. See also big bang; cosmology; expanding universe; steady-state theory."

I don't think the way I have been defining it is incorrect, this definition implies the same thing: the universe includes all "places" where the laws of nature apply.

What I'm saying is that sometimes you have to accept that you don't have the necessary knowledge to properly argue a subject. What "makes sense" to you very well may not actually make sense, based on the vaste knowledge available.

I dont tell a surgeon how to do surgery, for example, because I have no knowledge on the matter. I can argue all I want until I'm blue in the face about how its "bad" to cut people open, but it doesnt make me right.

I'm not telling a surgeon that either, I'm having a discussion with people on a forum.
Well, lets approach this point this way: What is reason? How is reason used to make determinations?

According toanswers.com:
Reason -

n.

  • The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because, why.
  • A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
  • An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
  • The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
  • Good judgment; sound sense.
  • A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
  • Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

definition #4 fits how I have been using the term during this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.