21 Oct 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhy should I. I very much doubt the science or math in the Bible would have allowed anybody to directly calculate the trajectory of getting Apollo 11 to the moon. The Bible isn't a modern-science text book.
If that is the case, you should admit that the Bible is your criterion for all knowledge, including science, not simply ethics, morals & religion.
You seem to be insinuating that Christians are anti-science when it contradicts the Bible. I haven't seen any hard science that contradicts the Bible, so I don't know whether I would find myself being antagonistic towards it.
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI know you don't regard the TOE as hard science, but what about spectometry and other techniques used to calculate the age of the earth? What does qualify as hard science in your view?
You seem to be insinuating that Christians are anti-science when it contradicts the Bible. I haven't seen any hard science that contradicts the Bible, so I don't know whether I would find myself being antagonistic towards it.
22 Oct 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSpectometry has no way of conclusively measuring radioactive decay. If scientists can only come up with approximations in the laboratory, how the plague will they be able to measure it from lightyears away and then tout it as hard science, puleeees. Its all speculation IMO.
I know you don't regard the TOE as hard science, but what about spectometry and other techniques used to calculate the age of the earth? What does qualify as hard science in your view?
23 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseJust because something is an approximation doesn't mean it is invalid. They aren't such a bad estimates as to make the science meaningless.
Spectometry has no way of conclusively measuring radioactive decay. If scientists can only come up with approximations in the laboratory, how the plague will they be able to measure it from lightyears away and then tout it as hard science, puleeees. Its all speculation IMO.
Scientists always come up with approximations. No one ever publishes anything in a reputible journal giving an exact number for anything like that. Science is all about approximations and I don't see how that makes it any less useful. That is like saying something is "only" a theory.
They measure the radioactive isotopes of molecules in far away stars through spectroscopy. Every atom absorbs photons at specific wavelengths unique to that particular isotope of that atom. We can see these as dark lines in the light from stars, which is normally a continuum across all wavelengths. We use this to measure the abundances of various types of atoms in any star or interstellar gas cloud. It IS a hard science. Just because you don't take the time to understand something doesn't mean it is only speculation.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowJust because something is an approximation doesn't mean it is invalid.
Just because something is an approximation doesn't mean it is invalid. They aren't such a bad estimates as to make the science meaningless.
Scientists always come up with approximations. No one ever publishes anything in a reputible journal giving an exact number for anything like that. Science is all about approximations and I don't see ho ...[text shortened]... t because you don't take the time to understand something doesn't mean it is only speculation.
I never said it was invalid. I said it can't be used as conclusive proof for the age of the universe. It has some base assumptions I don't agree with.
They aren't such a bad estimates as to make the science meaningless.
Absolutely, but they are meaningless when touted as undisputable evidence.
Scientists always come up with approximations. No one ever publishes anything in a reputible journal giving an exact number for anything like that. Science is all about approximations and I don't see how that makes it any less useful. That is like saying something is "only" a theory.
Read my post again, you seem to be jumping to conclusions I never meant. I never said approximations are bad, just how approximate will it be, when studied, instead in the lab using control samples, through a spectrometer? How do you accound for the fact that the sample you are studying is not a closed system? How do you account for all the contamination you can't possibly be seeing from so far away?
They measure the radioactive isotopes of molecules in far away stars through spectroscopy. Every atom absorbs photons at specific wavelengths unique to that particular isotope of that atom. We can see these as dark lines in the light from stars, which is normally a continuum across all wavelengths. We use this to measure the abundances of various types of atoms in any star or interstellar gas cloud.
Yes. And your point is? I already knew this.
It IS a hard science.
Not when you are using a spectrometer to measure the rate of radioactive decay it's not. Hard science relies on experimental, quantifiable data and the scientific method. How do you measure the initial concentrations of the parent isotope? How do you measure the initial contentrations of the daughter isotope? How do you measure the ratio between the two once your down to the half-life? How do you account for an open system?
Just because you don't take the time to understand something doesn't mean it is only speculation.
Oooh! 😲 I took the time, all right. I didn't make the previous statement about approximation without consideration. 😴
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by Halitosehere's a few "approximations" of the age of the rocks : notice how none say anything close to 6000 years.
Spectometry has no way of conclusively measuring radioactive decay. If scientists can only come up with approximations in the laboratory, how the plague will they be able to measure it from lightyears away and then tout it as hard science, puleeees. Its all speculation IMO.
Technique Age Range (billion years)
uranium-lead 3.60±0.05
lead-lead 3.56±0.10
lead-lead 3.74±0.12
lead-lead 3.62±0.13
rubidium-strontium 3.64±0.06
rubidium-strontium 3.62±0.14
rubidium-strontium 3.67±0.09
rubidium-strontium 3.66±0.10
rubidium-strontium 3.61±0.22
rubidium-strontium 3.56±0.14
lutetium-hafnium 3.55±0.22
samarium-neodymium 3.56±0.20
(compiled from Dalrymple, 1991)
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by frogstompThey used some of these dating methods on something that was still alive and it was dated a few million years old. Puleeeees, Froggy... That dating stuff is all speculation.
here's a few "approximations" of the age of the rocks : notice how none say anything close to 6000 years.
Technique Age Range (billion years)
uranium-lead 3.60±0.05
lead-lead 3.56±0.10
lead-lead 3.74±0.12
lead-lead 3.62±0.13
rubidium-strontium 3.64±0.06
rubidium-strontium 3.62±0.14
rubidium-strontium 3.67±0.09
rubidium-stronti ...[text shortened]... 14
lutetium-hafnium 3.55±0.22
samarium-neodymium 3.56±0.20
(compiled from Dalrymple, 1991)
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou know, it would be nice if you had actual sources instead of spewing out general claims. You see, your claim that they tested it on "something that was alive" just doesn't cut it. Almost sounds like you pulled it out of your a**. Not saying that you did, but if you want some credibility, how about you tell us WHAT they tested, WHEN this happened, and WHERE it was tested.
They used some of these dating methods on something that was still alive and it was dated a few million years old. Puleeeees, Froggy... That dating stuff is all speculation.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerScientists proved God doesn't exist.
They used some of these dating methods on something that was still alive and it was dated a few million years old. Puleeeees, Froggy... That dating stuff is all speculation.
I don't have to show my sources if you don't have to show yours!
24 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerjunk science site.. you got any REAL science sites?
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/PhysicalAnthropology/EvolutionFact/Radioactive/Radioactive.htm
btw they are talking about carbon-14 as far as living things tested, and NOT the methods I quoted from.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungScientist try to proof anything - even if its false!
Scientists proved God doesn't exist.
I don't have to show my sources if you don't have to show yours!
In this case, when scientist normally are not happy about their findings, they put it in the "It cannot exist" basket.
Which means - God does exist.