expelled

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Then I shoot him down with something along the lines of, "Oh yeah, so how come we see such good correspondence between independent samples taken from differing locations by different people and subject to different tests? What's more likely, that all the samples were independantly contaminated by exactly the same amount of exactly the same material, or ...[text shortened]... espond because that really is the age of the sample??"

Just a prediction, mind you.

Worldwide scientific conspiracy I tell ya! They were all scientists who had the same FAITH in the athiest religious movement, any discrepancy in the dating systems would force them to re-evaluate their world view....... therefore cannot be considered independent / unbiased testing!!!!

😀

Edit: Truely hope you note the sarcasm in the above post

Originally posted by timebombted
Knowing the weaknesses etc are a good thing

Indeed, but "trust your data" is something I am always telling students! If you have no reason to doubt the datas validity (i.e you did nothing stupid), but it doesn't do what you predicted, it's because your predictions were wrong.

Originally posted by timebombted
Worldwide scientific conspiracy I tell ya! They were all scientists who had the same FAITH in the athiest religious movement, any discrepancy in the dating systems would force them to re-evaluate their world view....... therefore cannot be considered independent / unbiased testing!!!!

😀

Edit: Truely hope you note the sarcasm in the above post

Yep, they are all card carrying members of the Universal Atheistic Brotherhood, having atheist rallies, hundreds of thousands of these pitiful people gathering together to burn churches, synagogues, and mosques. If you see one, you better run and hide! They will go after your children, you can recognize them by their uniform, a big white lab coat, but inside that lab coat, oh my.....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Indeed, but "trust your data" is something I am always telling students! If you have no reason to doubt the datas validity (i.e you did nothing stupid), but it doesn't do what you predicted, it's because your predictions were wrong.

Agreed - not all predictions are right first time, re-thinking the initial hypothesis and re-testing are all part of the scientific method.

"Trust your data" - as long as you initially selected an appropriate measurement / statistical test.

For example (I remember this from an early statistics lecture during my undergrad): During a 10 year period in Sweden (I think), there was a very high positive correlation between the increase in migratory storks each summer and an increase in the human birth rate.

Does this mean storks bring babies? An extreme example of course, this would probably come under your "doing something stupid" statement. Just rambling now so gonna finish post :0)

Originally posted by timebombted
Agreed - not all predictions are right first time, re-thinking the initial hypothesis and re-testing are all part of the scientific method.

"Trust your data" - as long as you initially selected an appropriate measurement / statistical test.

For example (I remember this from an early statistics lecture during my undergrad): During a 10 year period ...[text shortened]... me under your "doing something stupid" statement. Just rambling now so gonna finish post :0)

Ah, the old analogy with mini-skirt lengths and TV set ownership during the 1960s! A negative correlation....

But perhaps there may be more to the Swedish example than there appears at first sight. If, for example, we posited that the climate was getting better (increased stork survival, potential psycological effects on people's fecundity), or widespread changes in the economy were afoot (reduction in pollution, increase in living standards) then you might be onto something.

Come to think of it, nah, I prefer the Stork - Baby hypothesis better!


😉

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ah, the old analogy with mini-skirt lengths and TV set ownership during the 1960s! A negative correlation....

But perhaps there may be more to the Swedish example than there appears at first sight. If, for example, we posited that the climate was getting better (increased stork survival, potential psycological effects on people's fecundity), or wid ...[text shortened]... something.

Come to think of it, nah, I prefer the Stork - Baby hypothesis better!


😉

Or like the biologist trying to train a spider to jump on command.
He would offer it food, no response. Or make noises, slam a book on the table, etc. So he decided to give it negative attention, every time it did not jump after a command, he removed one leg, thinking it will get the idea soon. Nothing. After 8 such experiments, the poor spider had no legs left. His conclusion: The spider is obviously deaf.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Or like the biologist trying to train a spider to jump on command.
He would offer it food, no response. Or make noises, slam a book on the table, etc. So he decided to give it negative attention, every time it did not jump after a command, he removed one leg, thinking it will get the idea soon. Nothing. After 8 such experiments, the poor spider had no legs left. His conclusion: The spider is obviously deaf.

I never did get that experiment to work, you know. There sure are a lot of deaf spiders out there.....

😉

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I never did get that experiment to work, you know. There sure are a lot of deaf spiders out there.....

😉

Hey, did you see my post about ice on mars? It has been proven beyond doubt now the white stuff on the scooped out sample was ice.
It sublimated to nothing in a few days after exposure to Mars' atmosphere. Salt won't do that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Hey, did you see my post about ice on mars? It has been proven beyond doubt now the white stuff on the scooped out sample was ice.
It sublimated to nothing in a few days after exposure to Mars' atmosphere. Salt won't do that.

Yeah, I did. Interesting stuff. I'll post another link in the relevant thread though....

Originally posted by timebombted
KJ you are right to a very small yet inappropriate degree.

I agree it is impossible to predict with any certainty, IF you have limited information and IF this is the first time you are making a prediction with regards to your hypothesis. This is obviously a shot in the dark.......

However, the predictions of the various radiometric dating systems a ing is not contaminated, otherwise you may be dating something you are not intending to date.

"…lots of knowledge…" does not change that if you do not know all
that can make a difference, differences can be made and you will not
know why, or assume you do if you are not careful. Nothing you
said changes what I said as being true, with or without large amounts
of knowledge does not alter what I said. You can be correct with little
knowledge, or wrong with a lot, the fact remains that what is outside
of our knowledge reduces or flat out stops us from making correct
predictions, and it certainly does limit our abilities to declare the
odds of getting it right. At best you can say given our current beliefs
about what we think we know, this can be true.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"…lots of knowledge…" does not change that if you do not know all
that can make a difference, differences can be made and you will not
know why, or assume you do if you are not careful. Nothing you
said changes what I said as being true, with or without large amounts
of knowledge does not alter what I said. You can be correct with little
knowledge, or ...[text shortened]... t you can say given our current beliefs
about what we think we know, this can be true.
Kelly

How many times does a radiometric test have to be correct?
How many independent sources are adequate to remove bias / conspiracy?
How many other dating systems / principles are required to back the findings up?

........ before you KJ will accept the system as being correct.

With your logic, nothing could ever be concluded!! because despite all results indicating 1 consistent result, you still believe something has been missed all this time, and by chance it hasn't thrown the results off enough for anyone to suspect another variable may be involved?

In the eyes of KJ, its still possible the earth if flat right? because maybe we've missed something........

Originally posted by timebombted
How many times does a radiometric test have to be correct?
How many independent sources are adequate to remove bias / conspiracy?
How many other dating systems / principles are required to back the findings up?

........ before you KJ will accept the system as being correct.

With your logic, nothing could ever be concluded!! because despite all re ...[text shortened]... f KJ, its still possible the earth if flat right? because maybe we've missed something........

Man, you want to just make this personal?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Man, you want to just make this personal?
Kelly

Try answering the first 3 questions, it may help us all understand how you are trying to defend your position?

Also explain, using your same logic, why it is not possible for the earth to be flat.

Nothing personal, I just don't believe your position can be defended logically.