David Attenborough joins campaign

[Blackwhite]

So a nutrino beat a photon in a race by 60 billionths of a second and you want to call Einstein a fraud.

Oh and your understanding of a theory seems to be lacking as well. You might want to look up what a theory actually is.

I'm not calling Einstein a fraud. I'm saying Einstein is WRONG. Einstein said that NOTHING can travel faster than light, but the fact that scientists have managed to send neutrinos faster than light 15,000 times show that he was wrong.

Now if Einstein has just been proven wrong on that count it stands to reason that Darwin may one day be proven wrong about the Theory of Evolution.

And this is what a theory is:

In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Edited September 25, 2011 by Blackwhite

[Tiggs]

I'm not calling Einstein a fraud. I'm saying Einstein is WRONG. Einstein said that NOTHING can travel faster than light, but the fact that scientists have managed to send neutrinos faster than light 15,000 times show that he was wrong.

And what everyone else is saying is that this wouldn't be the first time that CERN reported that Neutrino's travelled faster than light, only later to realise that they have a measurement error.

Until it's replicated by other scientist's - then it's not the certainty that you currently believe it is.

If Neutrino's do travel faster than light and E=MC² no longer holds, then Science will do what it's always done. Find a theory that explains the new evidence.

Now if Einstein has just been proven wrong on that count it stands to reason that Darwin may one day be proven wrong about the Theory of Evolution.

Every scientific theory is falsifiable. I think you'll find that's why they're scientific.

As opposed to, say, religious beliefs, such as Intelligent Design.

[Chimpanzee]

I'm not calling Einstein a fraud. I'm saying Einstein is WRONG. Einstein said that NOTHING can travel faster than light, but the fact that scientists have managed to send neutrinos faster than light 15,000 times show that he was wrong.

Now if Einstein has just been proven wrong on that count it stands to reason that Darwin may one day be proven wrong about the Theory of Evolution.

The point he is trying to make is that David Altenborough has decided our present understanding of science is the final say on the subject and therefore we should ban religion. What right does he have to hold such confidence?

He is biased and dangerous too.

[Setton]

There's nothing wrong with teaching about creationism in science classrooms. It can be a good aid to understanding the scientific process.

1. We have a theory - Earth and everything on it was created in seven days by God.

2. There is no evidence to contradict this but some in favour (only a book but it's more than the evidence against) so it is generally accepted.

3. Evidence is found that contradicts the theory. The theory is discarded.

No, the point of science is to find answers. The problem is that some of these answers are against what religion teaches. For example, science has proven that earthquakes are caused by the movement of the earth's tectonic plates but varies religions said that earthquakes were the 'wrath of god'.

I hate to say it, but earthquakes haven't been 'proven' to be caused by anything. The currently accepted theory is that they are caused by shifting tectonic plates but, as we can't observe it directly, it remains just a theory. One that's still debated over in scientific communities now.

Wow, you really know your stuff, don't you?

Science, as a discipline existed for almost 4000 years before the definition of the Scientific Method.

And religion has existed since at least 10,000 BC. Your point is...?

There's no way to decide which comes first. It all depends on your definition of science. If you count observation and conclusion as science, maybe science came first. Usually, we include investigation as well though and verifying results. If a caveman saw another one eat a berry and die, I doubt he though 'That's strange. I know, I'll get at least two others to eat them and see if the same thing happens'.

[questionmark]

There's nothing wrong with teaching about creationism in science classrooms. It can be a good aid to understanding the scientific process.

1. We have a theory - Earth and everything on it was created in seven days by God.

2. There is no evidence to contradict this but some in favour (only a book but it's more than the evidence against) so it is generally accepted.

3. Evidence is found that contradicts the theory. The theory is discarded.

I hate to say it, but earthquakes haven't been 'proven' to be caused by anything. The currently accepted theory is that they are caused by shifting tectonic plates but, as we can't observe it directly, it remains just a theory. One that's still debated over in scientific communities now.

And religion has existed since at least 10,000 BC. Your point is...?

There's no way to decide which comes first. It all depends on your definition of science. If you count observation and conclusion as science, maybe science came first. Usually, we include investigation as well though and verifying results. If a caveman saw another one eat a berry and die, I doubt he though 'That's strange. I know, I'll get at least two others to eat them and see if the same thing happens'.

My point, at the time was (just in case you just flew over the post without actually reading) that science does not have to be the whole shebang with flutes and whistles we know. Science in fact started when a organism learned what was edible, what was inedible and what was poisonous. That would be several million years back. And I would not be surprised that religion is but what the science at its time could not explain.

Edit, and please check what Theory means, you might have a postulate, but hardly a theory as the premises is a supposition (believe) and not a fact.

Edited September 25, 2011 by questionmark

[Setton]

My point, at the time was (just in case you just flew over the post without actually reading) that science does not have to be the whole shebang with flutes and whistles we know. Science in fact started when a organism learned what was edible, what was inedible and what was poisonous. That would be several million years back. And I would noty be surprised that religion is but what the science at its time could not explain.

Edit, and please check what Theory means, you might have a postulate, but hardly a theory as the premises is a suposition (believe) and not a fact.

Yes, I was worried that was the point you were trying to make. As I said, it depends on your definition of science. If you think observation and conclusion makes science in and of itself, you may have a point. Ask any decent scientist though, and they'll tell you that without any further investigation or verification of results, it's just an event that happened, not science.

the·o·rynoun /ˈTHēərē/  /ˈTHi(ə)rē/ 

theories, plural

1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

- Darwin's theory of evolution

2.A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based

- a theory of education

- music theory

3.An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

- my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged

4.A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject

As I said, we have a theory as defined in poit one above. It is also backed up by literature believed to be from a reputable source. Nothing disproves it so it is accepted.

Unless, of course, you'd like to change the definiton of a theory to go with your new one for science. If so, please could i have a copy of your dictionary when you finish redefining every word in English? It could be entertaining.

[Chimpanzee]

Yes, I was worried that was the point you were trying to make. As I said, it depends on your definition of science. If you think observation and conclusion makes science in and of itself, you may have a point. Ask any decent scientist though, and they'll tell you that without any further investigation or verification of results, it's just an event that happened, not science.

the·o·rynoun /ˈTHēərē/  /ˈTHi(ə)rē/ 

theories, plural

1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

- Darwin's theory of evolution

2.A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based

- a theory of education

- music theory

3.An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

- my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged

4.A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject

As I said, we have a theory as defined in poit one above. It is also backed up by literature believed to be from a reputable source. Nothing disproves it so it is accepted.

Unless, of course, you'd like to change the definiton of a theory to go with your new one for science. If so, please could i have a copy of your dictionary when you finish redefining every word in English? It could be entertaining.

There is a time element.

Science in a billion years time will be closer to the truth than now and may in fact turn out to be religion. So why must David Attenborough force the issue now?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

The point he is trying to make is that David Altenborough has decided our present understanding of science is the final say on the subject and therefore we should ban religion. What right does he have to hold such confidence?

He is biased and dangerous too.

I think Attenborough's position is that science explains things in such a way as to be validly taught in a science lesson. Which Intelligent Design explains things in such a way as to be validly taught in a religion lesson. Now, not to wave anything like credentials around, I'm a teacher in a Catholic school. We take a rather Newtonian view on things - science is describing the fashion in which God acted - in our science lessons. Concrete and observable are the bywords for science. Philosophy and belief is for Religious Education lessons. Science covers the "how" while religion covers the "why". All Intelligent Design is is a great big mess of "deus tu volt" - "God Willed It" - which frankly isn't exactly observable.

[questionmark]

Yes, I was worried that was the point you were trying to make. As I said, it depends on your definition of science. If you think observation and conclusion makes science in and of itself, you may have a point. Ask any decent scientist though, and they'll tell you that without any further investigation or verification of results, it's just an event that happened, not science.

the·o·rynoun /ˈTHēərē/  /ˈTHi(ə)rē/ 

theories, plural

1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

- Darwin's theory of evolution

2.A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based

- a theory of education

- music theory

3.An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

- my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged

4.A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject

As I said, we have a theory as defined in poit one above. It is also backed up by literature believed to be from a reputable source. Nothing disproves it so it is accepted.

Unless, of course, you'd like to change the definiton of a theory to go with your new one for science. If so, please could i have a copy of your dictionary when you finish redefining every word in English? It could be entertaining.

Interesting, and may I see the source for that, because according to Websters (since 1913) theory is defined as:

Definition of THEORY

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : speculation 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equation>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

But maybe the 1913 edition of the Webster is right when it claims that most people use the word in a wrong context because they don't know what they are talking about. And in our case we are interested in the 5th definition above.

[Setton]

Interesting, and may I see the source for that, because according to Websters (since 1913) theory is defined as:

Definition of THEORY

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : speculation 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equation>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

But maybe the 1913 edition of the Webster is right when it claims that most people use the word in a wrong context because they don't know what they are talking about. And in our case we are interested in the 5th definition above.

Ok, we're using different definitions. I'm sure the lecturers here must have a vastly inferior understanding of this to yours.

Anyway, even under your definition, it would still count as a theory when considered in context. To the people of the time we are thinking of, it would be both plausible and scientifically acceptable. I mentioned earlier on that it is backed up by what is seen as a reliable source. To the people of the time, the Bible would be equivalent to a scientific journal today.

The idea that it isn't a theory because it doesn't match what we now know is ridiculous. Otherwise, most of our current theories might as well be discarded because someone will almost certainly disprove or change them one day. Every theory has to be considered in the context of when it was first made.

[questionmark]

Ok, we're using different definitions. I'm sure the lecturers here must have a vastly inferior understanding of this to yours.

Anyway, even under your definition, it would still count as a theory when considered in context. To the people of the time we are thinking of, it would be both plausible and scientifically acceptable. I mentioned earlier on that it is backed up by what is seen as a reliable source. To the people of the time, the Bible would be equivalent to a scientific journal today.

The idea that it isn't a theory because it doesn't match what we now know is ridiculous. Otherwise, most of our current theories might as well be discarded because someone will almost certainly disprove or change them one day. Every theory has to be considered in the context of when it was first made.

Wherein my definition is the universally accepted and your definition seems to be something a creationist made up on the fly (The reference to the Evolution is a dead giveaway) . As a rule of Thumb: A Theory is a conjecture based on evidence about the reason of a phenomena, as far as science goes.

And besides believe the Creationists have not a single shred of evidence. Whereby it discualifies as theory and is a postulate at best. But so is "the moon is made out of green cheese".

Edited September 25, 2011 by questionmark

[The Silver Thong]

Ok, we're using different definitions. I'm sure the lecturers here must have a vastly inferior understanding of this to yours.

Anyway, even under your definition, it would still count as a theory when considered in context. To the people of the time we are thinking of, it would be both plausible and scientifically acceptable. I mentioned earlier on that it is backed up by what is seen as a reliable source. To the people of the time, the Bible would be equivalent to a scientific journal today.

The idea that it isn't a theory because it doesn't match what we now know is ridiculous. Otherwise, most of our current theories might as well be discarded because someone will almost certainly disprove or change them one day. Every theory has to be considered in the context of when it was first made.

Could you post some evidience of a theory of god. No, didn't think so. That is why the god theory is not a theory but a wish or a dream. Creationism is just that. There is no theory for creationisim because it does not even constitute a theory.

[Rlyeh]

There's nothing wrong with teaching about creationism in science classrooms. It can be a good aid to understanding the scientific process.

1. We have a theory - Earth and everything on it was created in seven days by God.

2. There is no evidence to contradict this but some in favour (only a book but it's more than the evidence against) so it is generally accepted.

3. Evidence is found that contradicts the theory. The theory is discarded.

No, you don't have a theory in the scientific context, hell you don't even have a hypothesis.

[Blackwhite]

It's also a fact that the most common way to establish the age of rocks- radiometric dating - is very flawed and can give the ages of rocks to be much older than they actually are.

However, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. of the Institute for Creation Research has an article called "The Young Earth" on a website. In it, he shows a table of 76 different processes in nature that can be used to estimate the age of the earth. 26 show the earth to be less than 10,000 years old, 15 show the earth to be more than 10,000 up to 100,000 years old and many other natural processes show the Earth to be much younger than if radiometric dating was used.

How Rocks are Dated

Many people think scientists determine the ages of rocks by radiometric dating. Later in this article, we will discuss radiometric dating in detail in its own section. But the fact is that the dating of rocks to a particular time period in the past is not done by any sort of objective measurement. The dating of rocks is done by dating the index fossils which are found in the rocks! The scientist dates the fossils by determining when he thinks those fossils best fit into the assumed general theory of evolution. Any measurement, whether done radiometrically or otherwise, that disagrees with the assumed general theory of evolution is deemed incorrect and is discarded. The scientist then finds that when the rock samples are arranged according to the age he has determined, the fossils in them progress along the time line in accordance with the general theory of evolution. But it was the assumption that the general theory of evolution was correct that was used to date the rocks in the first place. This is circular reasoning, plain and simple. But of course the scientists will conceal enough of the facts and disguise their arguments well enough so that most people will not recognize their circular reasoning for what it is.

Here is an example to show just how illogical this circular reasoning is. A person could assume that no life existed on the earth prior to one hundred years ago. He would then logically conclude that all fossils must be no more than one hundred years old. Then one could use the fossils to date all rocks that contain fossils to one hundred years or less. Then he could say that all of the rocks are evidence that no life existed on the earth prior to one hundred years ago. This argument and conclusion are ludicrous of course. One could prove anything they wanted about the earth's age by this process, but this is just the kind of thinking that is used to support the general theory of evolution.

Evidence of the Young Age of the Earth

There are many natural processes which can be used to estimate the age of the earth. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. of the Institute for Creation Research has an article called "The Young Earth" at http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-017.htm. In it, he shows a table of 76 different processes in nature that can be used to estimate the age of the earth. The table includes processes such as the influx of various elements into the oceans, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the accumulation of meteoric materials on the earth, and many other processes. Of these 76 processes:

26 show the earth to be less than 10,000 years old

15 show the earth to be more than 10,000 up to 100,000 years old

11 show the earth to be more than 100,000 up to one million years old

5 show the earth to be more than one million up to 10 million years old

13 show the earth to be more than 10 million up to 100 million years old

6 show the earth to be more than 100 million up to half a billion years old

None of the 76 processes show the earth to be more than half a billion years old.

More than half of these processes show the earth to be less than 100,000 years old.

It should be noted that these processes assume uniformity and further assume that none of the daughter component (the substance being formed) was present in the sample in the beginning. If any of the daughter component was present in the sample in the beginning, then that would cause the actual age to be even younger.

The assumption of uniformity, that all conditions remained constant over the period of the measurement, is much more likely to be correct for short time periods than for long time periods. Therefore, the estimates that yield younger ages are more likely to be accurate. Yet the evolutionists say the earth is ten times older than even the longest of the estimates shown above. But they certainly do not say this by preponderance of the evidence.

Radiometric Dating

One of the primary "evidences" that evolutionists like to point to show that the earth is very old is radiometric dating. As the table in the preceding section showed, there are many geological systems which could be used to estimate the age of the earth. But with each of them, there are potential problems that could throw off the results. Radiometric dating is no exception. Picture in your mind a simple hourglass that has half of the sand in the top half and half of the sand in the bottom half. We might assume from looking at it that it has been sitting there for half an hour. This would be assuming uniformity, but would this really be a correct assumption?

(A.) Someone could have poured all that sand in the top shortly before you looked at it. In this case, the hourglass may have really been sitting there for several days before you looked.

(B.) Someone may have poured all of that sand in the bottom shortly before you looked at it. In this case, the hourglass may not have been sitting there but a second or two before you looked.

© Someone could have tampered with the opening in the middle of the hourglass, either clogging or widening it. In this case, the hourglass may have been sitting there either much longer or much shorter than is apparent.

(D.) Perhaps the hourglass has always looked just as it now appears, and therefore gives no real indication of how long it has been there.

Radiometric dating involves the process of a radioactive element, such as uranium, decaying into another element, such as lead. Uranium-lead radiometric dating would be a good clock for estimating the age of rocks if we knew the following.

(A.) The rate at which uranium decays into lead.

(B.) How much lead was in the rock when it was formed.

(C.) All of the lead that was not in the rock when the rock was formed came from decaying uranium.

(D.) There is no way any extra lead or uranium could have gotten into the rock from the outside.

(E.) There is no way any of the original lead or uranium could have gotten out of the rock, such as by differential leaching.

(F.) The process has always been uniform. In other words, A, C, D, and E have each always remained constant throughout the age of the rock.

However, most of these requirements are either unknown, or are known not to be true. But there is a flip-side to the uranium-lead dating method. Uranium decays into lead, which is a very common element on the earth. When the uranium decays, it also produces helium-4 as a by-product. But unlike lead, helium-4 is very rare. Rocks which the uranium-lead dating method estimates to be more than 100 million years old, contain only enough helium to account for a tiny fraction of that time. The evolutionists claim that the helium must have escaped from the rocks. But if that were the case, we should be able to find vast amounts of helium-4 in the atmosphere. But the tiny amount of helium-4 present on the earth indicates only a few thousand years of uranium decay, not 4 to 5 billion years. Even uranium-lead radiometric dating provides evidence that the earth is young when one considers the lack of helium-4 on the planet.

Another radiometric dating method is the Potassium-Argon method. With this method, ages found from samples taken from a single rock may differ drastically. Rocks formed from the active Kilauea volcano in Hawaii were found to increase in age as the depth of the rock increased. Lava flows known to be less than 200 years old yielded dates of up to 22 million years using this method. Part of the problem is that argon, which is abundant in the atmosphere, can be incorporated into the rocks under pressure, making the Potassium-Argon method yield older dates.

The radio-carbon (C-14) dating method is another very inaccurate dating method. Results differ greatly even in the same rock layer. In rocks that are supposed to be 110 million years old, dinosaur bones and wood were taken and dated to 19,000 years old and 890 years old respectively using this method. In addition, the shells of living mollusks regularly date to more than 2000 years old using the radio-carbon method. One other interesting note about C-14 is that its level on the earth is presently increasing exponentially, and is now 30 per cent short of equilibrium. It has been estimated that it would have taken less than 8000 years for the C-14 to reach its present level of concentration.

Rapid Processes

Evolutionists also attempt to support their claim that the earth is billions of years old by saying that the earth's various rock strata each took millions of years to form. For example they say it takes 1400 to 2700 years to form a single foot of limestone. They calculate these formation rates by first assuming how many millions of years, according to the general theory of evolution, that the rock strata must cover. Then they simply divide by the depth (thickness) of the stone layer.

But the evolutionists ignore the overwhelming evidence which strongly supports rapid limestone formation. This includes many fossils which plainly illustrate that the rock was formed very quickly. One such fossil is of a fish in the process of swallowing a smaller fish, with the tail of the smaller fish clearly sticking out the mouth of the larger one. Now following the assumption of uniformity and the speed of limestone formation that the evolutionists calculate, it would have taken hundreds of years to cover this fish. But clearly this fish was covered in much less than one day's time at the very most, perhaps instantaneously. There are also fossils of fern leaves which did not even have time to wilt before they were covered. There are fossils of whole shrimp, dragonflies, and other insects preserved with minute detail. All of the tiny soft parts of can be clearly seen. So these tiny creatures had no time to decompose. Large dinosaurs with the soft parts preserved have also been found. One fossil shows a 30 foot long ichthyosaur (an aquatic fish-like animal) with a baby ichthyosaur visible in the womb. Yet another fossil shows the same type of animal giving birth with half of the baby out of the mother and half still inside the mother. Assuming the uniformity theory of 1400 years per foot of limestone, and a body thickness of about 5 feet for such a large animal, it would have taken at least 7000 years to cover this ichthyosaur. But obviously, that is not the case. It is as if someone suddenly dumped a whole truckload of cement on this animal, causing it to be instantaneously sealed in rock. This was a catastrophic destruction, with no time to finish dinner and no time to finish giving birth, much less time to decompose. If that is not enough evidence, trees over 40 feet tall have been found standing vertically in the limestone. The trees did not decompose in the time it took them to be covered, which would have taken more than 50,000 years by the evolutionists' uniformity processes.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

Edited September 26, 2011 by Blackwhite

[shadowhive]

The problem with saying the Earth is 10,000-100,000 years old is very obvious. We have fossils of animals which are older then that date. How could we possibly have fossils of animals older then the planet?

Hell we're even found artifacts of human civilisation older then 10,000 years old which doesn't do it any favors.

The problem becomes that certain 'natural processes' renew themselves over time.

This even occurs in people. I've almost 25 years old but some parts of me are younger (my teeth, fingernails and hair for example) and others renew themselves even more regularly (ie cells). If you studied the natural processes involved in my body in the same way that person did you'd come to the (flawed) conclusion that I was much younger then I was.

[Chimpanzee]

The problem with saying the Earth is 10,000-100,000 years old is very obvious. We have fossils of animals which are older then that date. How could we possibly have fossils of animals older then the planet?

Hell we're even found artifacts of human civilisation older then 10,000 years old which doesn't do it any favors.

The problem becomes that certain 'natural processes' renew themselves over time.

This even occurs in people. I've almost 25 years old but some parts of me are younger (my teeth, fingernails and hair for example) and others renew themselves even more regularly (ie cells). If you studied the natural processes involved in my body in the same way that person did you'd come to the (flawed) conclusion that I was much younger then I was.

Can we introduce the Evil Genius argument?

How do you know we arent all sat in simulation pods having a virtual reality projected into our minds by none over that his most evilness Satan?

I think we are because if we were to submit ourselves to this reality we'd all end up corrupted. Now why would the reality we live in lead us to that outcome?

[Rlyeh]

However, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. of the Institute for Creation Research has an article called "The Young Earth" on a website.

The same Henry M. Morris who claimed the craters on the moon was caused by the conflict between God and Satan?

"An early attempt to deal with the crater evidence was made by the "father of modern creationism," Henry M. Morris, who suggested that lunar and Martian craters might represent battle scars of a cosmic war between angels and Satan (Morris, 1972; Spears, 2006)"

http://paleo.cc/ce/craters.htm

Many people think scientists determine the ages of rocks by radiometric dating. Later in this article, we will discuss radiometric dating in detail in its own section. But the fact is that the dating of rocks to a particular time period in the past is not done by any sort of objective measurement. The dating of rocks is done by dating the index fossils which are found in the rocks! The scientist dates the fossils by determining when he thinks those fossils best fit into the assumed general theory of evolution. Any measurement, whether done radiometrically or otherwise, that disagrees with the assumed general theory of evolution is deemed incorrect and is discarded. The scientist then finds that when the rock samples are arranged according to the age he has determined, the fossils in them progress along the time line in accordance with the general theory of evolution. But it was the assumption that the general theory of evolution was correct that was used to date the rocks in the first place. This is circular reasoning, plain and simple. But of course the scientists will conceal enough of the facts and disguise their arguments well enough so that most people will not recognize their circular reasoning for what it is.

You can stop right there, because you are so wrong its not funny.

"Radioactive elements were incorporated into the Earth when the Solar System formed. All rocks and minerals contain tiny amounts of these radioactive elements. Radioactive elements are unstable; they breakdown spontaneously into more stable atoms over time, a process known as radioactive decay. Radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate, specific to each radioactive isotope. Since the 1950s, geologists have used radioactive elements as natural "clocks" for determining numerical ages of certain types of rocks.

Radiometric clocks are "set" when each rock forms. "Forms" means the moment an igneous rock solidifies from magma, a sedimentary rock layer is deposited, or a rock heated by metamorphism cools off. It's this resetting process that gives us the ability to date rocks that formed at different times in earth history.

A commonly used radiometric dating technique relies on the breakdown of potassium (40K) to argon (40Ar). In igneous rocks, the potassium-argon "clock" is set the moment the rock first crystallizes from magma. Precise measurements of the amount of 40K relative to 40Ar in an igneous rock can tell us the amount of time that has passed since the rock crystallized. If an igneous or other rock is metamorphosed, its radiometric clock is reset, and potassium-argon measurements can be used to tell the number of years that has passed since metamorphism."

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/gtime/radiom.html

[shadowhive]

Can we introduce the Evil Genius argument?

How do you know we arent all sat in simulation pods having a virtual reality projected into our minds by none over that his most evilness Satan?

I think we are because if we were to submit ourselves to this reality we'd all end up corrupted. Now why would the reality we live in lead us to that outcome?

...how does that have any relevence with what I said?

Edited September 26, 2011 by shadowhive

[Chimpanzee]

...how does that have any relevence with what I said?

It means the Earth could be any age.

In fact it might just exist for the duration of your lifetime. Maybe they blanked your mind before they put you in and are seeing what they can do to you.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Chimpanzee

[shadowhive]

It means the Earth could be any age.

In fact it might just exist for the duration of your lifetime. Maybe they blanked your mind before they put you in and are seeing what they can do to you.

See that comes off as crazier then the young earth people.

[Chimpanzee]

See that comes off as crazier then the young earth people.

Why?

In philosophy doesnt the evil genius argument exist?

When you say its crazy you are saying your confidence in how you see the world is high. Yet in philosophy there are 100's of ways to see the world none of which can be proven wrong.

Therefore what right do you have to assume your view is the correct one and what right does David Attenborough have to force his view onto others?

No right at all.

[shadowhive]

Why?

In philosophy doesnt the evil genius argument exist?

When you say its crazy you are saying your confidence in how you see the world is high. Yet in philosophy there are 100's of ways to see the world none of which can be proven wrong.

Therefore what right do you have to assume your view is the correct one and what right does David Attenborough have to force his view onto others?

No right at all.

It comes off like that as it has no basis in reality.

It's like saying everything that happens is god's will. There's no evidence of it, yet people except it as true.

However as you say, that's 'in philosophy' so would be bought up in lessons on philosophy. This, however is about science and what should be taught in science.

If this was about someone wanting to teach french in an english class, it'd be obvious that the two don't go together, so why is it so hard for this?

[Chimpanzee]

It comes off like that as it has no basis in reality.

It's like saying everything that happens is god's will. There's no evidence of it, yet people except it as true.

However as you say, that's 'in philosophy' so would be bought up in lessons on philosophy. This, however is about science and what should be taught in science.

If this was about someone wanting to teach french in an english class, it'd be obvious that the two don't go together, so why is it so hard for this?

There is nothing wrong with teaching science in science classes and religion in religion classes.

The child must get both sides and some philosophy too so that no side is indocturnating him/her. Its then for the kid to decide what they believe in.

[shadowhive]

There is nothing wrong with teaching science in science classes and religion in religion classes.

The child must get both sides and some philosophy too so that no side is indocturnating him/her. Its then for the kid to decide what they believe in.

Exactly, but this is about keeping creationism (religion) out of science classes. What's the problem with that?

[Chimpanzee]

Exactly, but this is about keeping creationism (religion) out of science classes. What's the problem with that?

So long as they get all sides nothing.

Hey, I think you jumped into a middle of a debate where it was looking like we had a few who wanted the total banning of religiion.

Peace.