Originally posted by jammerI try not to take on any science I don't understand. I haven't taken on a whole lot...One thing I've realised, a worldview doesn't have to be true to be useful--what counts is coherence.
All religions have a few "leaders" and a jillion followers. Science is no different. Most of you haven't gone past HS Biology, but you're true believers. Once you accept the scientific method OR the Bible as "fact", your arse is wide open to be duped into everything from Piltdown man to the tooth farie.
Originally posted by PhuzudakaDo any of them state that radioactive dating could be multiple orders of magnitude out or do they refer to percentages?
You were the one that asked if there was any evidence to suggest that the rates of decay have not always been constant.
What a joke you are. Be an ostrich and bury your head in the ground.
Originally posted by jammerWow, is this the same guy harping on me about trying to make new definitions for spirituality, and then trying to tell me that science and religion are the same? I did not know faith and evidence were the same word, would you like to elaborate?
I'm 65 .. unless I don't realize it.
Piltdown man is one of my 1st memories of school. I was into dinosaurs bigtime as a kid.
...............
Belief system/Religion .. symantics.
Most all of the "scientists" that post here come off as pure zealots IMO. True believers.
Trouble is, scientists, like priests are only men. Warts and all. And being men, ...[text shortened]... probably never get to read this post."
.... and thus not wasted 10 mins. of my life.
Also, blaming science because of a scientist is pretty childish. There's going to be retarded/evil people in any field. Now, if you got something constructive to say, post it. Otherwise, if you are just here to call people names, etc. Then I'll just ignore you.
Originally posted by PhuzudakaIt's pretty clear now you have an axe to grind. You are not intereswted in real science, only in trying to throw monkey wrenches in what real science has accomplished over the last couple hundred years.
How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change ...[text shortened]... os," Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1982), pp. 4-5.
It is pretty clear from the evidence you present they are all right wing christians trying their best to prove not that science is wrong but that the BS stories of christianity is right and real evidence be dammed.
So tell me how unbiased you are in this regard, that is a dare.
Originally posted by Zander 88i have no idea what you're on about, but you seem pretty dense.
Wow, is this the same guy harping on me about trying to make new definitions for spirituality, and then trying to tell me that science and religion are the same? I did not know faith and evidence were the same word, would you like to elaborate?
Also, blaming science because of a scientist is pretty childish. There's going to be retarded/evil people in a ...[text shortened]... post it. Otherwise, if you are just here to call people names, etc. Then I'll just ignore you.
No matter, just line-up over there on the left with the rest of the idiots .. and then ignore me.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhereas you, on the other hand, have no ax to grind whatsoever.
It's pretty clear now you have an axe to grind. You are not intereswted in real science, only in trying to throw monkey wrenches in what real science has accomplished over the last couple hundred years.
It is pretty clear from the evidence you present they are all right wing christians trying their best to prove not that science is wrong but that the BS st ...[text shortened]... t and real evidence be dammed.
So tell me how unbiased you are in this regard, that is a dare.
It's pretty clear from the evidence you present that you're a left wing science-zealot trying your best not to prove that science is right, but that science is God ... real evidence be damned.
So tell me how unbiased you are in this regard. That's a double-dare
Originally posted by jammerSo you two are clones? I speak to Phut and I have to answer to you?
Whereas you, on the other hand, have no ax to grind whatsoever.
It's pretty clear from the evidence you present that you're a left wing science-zealot trying your best not to prove that science is right, but that science is God ... real evidence be damned.
So tell me how unbiased you are in this regard. That's a double-dare
BTW, science is not a god. Scientific evidence and alternate avenues of research is what makes for scientific principles. Just like Newton figured out gravity, he didn't have the whole story, then Einstein came along and modified newtonian gravity but revealed a truly incredible level of understanding about how the universe acts, that is, mass bends space, space changes the way masses move. That fact did not refute Newton, in fact for calculating planetary orbits or interplanetary trips, Newton's laws still works. That kind of thing is not a religious notion, much as you would like to force everyone to believe. If something comes along and shows a new path, we follow it and maybe it reveals new knowledge, maybe not. Which is not to say there is no politics amongst scientists, its a competitive field and sometimes POV's of some scientists are held to their dying breath and it is only by some diehard dying that more universal truths become evident. You represent such a viewpoint. You and your so-called friends who care nothing about real science, as I have said over and over, you simply want to tear down a carefully built up structure of working knowledge so you can feel better about your own so-called religious dogma.
Talking about the supernova which has apparently occurred some 240 million light years away from us...
If our earth is indeed only 10,000 yrs old, it would mean that that star exploded very, very long time ago before the formation of earth. I must admit that I am not well versed with 'light years', but does it mean that when we finally see the event now, it actually means that the actual explosion happened some 240 million years ago? Can someone please explain if there is any difference between 'light' years and the 'years' that we have on our calendar? Thanks
5 edits
Originally posted by ckoh1965A year is a unit for measuring time. A light year is a unit for measuring distance. In this regard, they are as different as a pound is from a watt.
Can someone please explain if there is any difference between 'light' years and the 'years' that we have on our calendar? Thanks
However, they are related. A light year is defined to be the distance that light travels in a year, the same sort of of year that your calendar measures. (If you drove your car at a constant rate for a year, you could define a similar unit of distance called a car year, describing just how far you drive in that amount of time at that rate.)
When you first see light from an explosion that you know to be at a distance of x light years from you, you know that that explosion happened x years ago (provided you are analyzing the problem using classical, Newtonian physics, which I recommend you stick with until you are at a minimum comfortable with the notion of a light year).
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAh.. yes, I see the difference now. Thanks for the explanation!
A year is a unit for measuring time. A light year is a unit for measuring distance. In this regard, they are as different as a pound is from a watt.
However, they are related. A light year is defined to be the distance that light travels in a year, the same sort of of year that your calendar measures. (If you drove your car at a constant rate ...[text shortened]... ecommend you stick with until you are at a minimum comfortable with the notion of a light year).
Originally posted by jammerAnd you call that "not long ago"?
I'm 65 .. unless I don't realize it.
Piltdown man is one of my 1st memories of school. I was into dinosaurs bigtime as a kid.
Most all of the "scientists" that post here come off as pure zealots IMO. True believers.
I think the scientific method is reliable. I would probably not be called a scientist though as it is not my profession.
Trouble is, scientists, like priests are only men. Warts and all. And being men, they're fallible and most definitely subject to their egos. Thus, some leading scientists are corrupt .. just like priests.
The difference is that most students of science realize this and do not take every word of every scientist as literal truth. I know many Christians who believe everything their priest tells them.
ONE of these came up with Piltdown man and for 40 yrs every science student parroted this view. They swore to it.
Maybe you swore to it but I can guarantee that not all of them did. I can guarantee that there are other forgeries in the scientific world some of which have not been discovered or publicized. So no I would not swear to every apparent scientific discovery. In fact I have many criticisms for articles I read in even reputable scientific magazines. But that is part of the process.
I was taught newtons laws as fact and then later told that they weren't exactly accurate. It was only much later that I realized that even Einstiens Theory of Relativity is a reliable model but not reality itself.
But without that theory GPS devices wouldn't work.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe reason the GPS won't work without relativity factored in is the time flow in the satellites v ground units makes unfactored calculations off by as much as a half microsecond or so. Also just being in a stronger v weaker gravity field effects the flow of time so those two effects have to be factored in because at the speed of light, which is about 6 microseconds per mile, a half microsecond timing error makes the system off by 3 miles. So it is a very real effect uncovered by Big AL.
And you call that "not long ago"?
[b]Most all of the "scientists" that post here come off as pure zealots IMO. True believers.
I think the scientific method is reliable. I would probably not be called a scientist though as it is not my profession.
Trouble is, scientists, like priests are only men. Warts and all. And being men, they're falli ...[text shortened]... eliable model but not reality itself.
But without that theory GPS devices wouldn't work.
Originally posted by sonhouseWow, I didn't know gps was that complicated. Very cool to know.
The reason the GPS won't work without relativity factored in is the time flow in the satellites v ground units makes unfactored calculations off by as much as a half microsecond or so. Also just being in a stronger v weaker gravity field effects the flow of time so those two effects have to be factored in because at the speed of light, which is about 6 micr ...[text shortened]... timing error makes the system off by 3 miles. So it is a very real effect uncovered by Big AL.
Originally posted by KellyJayyou couldnt be further from the truth; science is not based on faith, it is based on fact; findings in a lab, evidence before the eyes
What is real, does not depend upon human guess work or theories, it
simply is what it is no matter what we think about it. You believe you
know what happened billions of years ago maybe, or you have some
educated guess, but it is still between your ears, it is a belief nothing
more, evidence or no. Much of what is called evidence are simply
stories wra ...[text shortened]... or that, it could be true, maybe not, the point it is, it is
still faith like it or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by PhuzudakaActually, evolutionists have *nothing* to say about the age of the earth which research generally falls into the realms of geology.
How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change ...[text shortened]... een higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly "date" as being old rocks.