Originally posted by twhitehead So you trust writing (easily forgable) and datestamps on video tapes (just as easy to modify) over highly accurate scientific dateing methods?
Every date is approximate as is clearly shown by your video clip date stamp which is only accurate to a second or so (assuming the owner actually set the clock in the camcorder in the first place and that his wa that the universe didnt 'poof' into existance last week just after you made that video clip.
When did I say that I trusted datestamps on video tapes?
You assume way too much.
Anything within the realms of recorded history may still be acceptable as evidence. But when you extrapolate so far into the past, you are relying solely on wishful thinking. It is when you barf up the '5 billion years' that people start questioning your honesty.
Originally posted by dj2becker When did I say that I trusted datestamps on video tapes?
You assume way too much.
Anything within the realms of recorded history may still be acceptable. It is when you barf up the '5 billion years' that people start questioning your honesty.
You said it here:
The difference is that rocks, ice etc do not have dates written on them. Their dates have to be approximated by exprapolation into the past using unprovable assumptions.
I trust recorded history much less than I trust scientific evidence. It is easier to forge the written word than it is to forge rocks, fosils or starlight and there is more motive to forge history.
There is also know reason to doubt science unless it contradicts a personal belief.
Originally posted by twhitehead You said it here:
[b]The difference is that rocks, ice etc do not have dates written on them. Their dates have to be approximated by exprapolation into the past using unprovable assumptions.
I trust recorded history much less than I trust scientific evidence. It is easier to forge the written word than it is to forge rocks, fosils or starlight an ...[text shortened]... ge history.
There is also know reason to doubt science unless it contradicts a personal belief.[/b]
Would you ever doubt the date that is stamped on a coin?
I trust recorded history much less than I trust scientific evidence. It is easier to forge the written word than it is to forge rocks, fosils or starlight and there is more motive to forge history.
Scientific evidence (with regards to origins) is always interpreted from a set of presuppositions. Two people can look at the same evidence and reach two totally different conclusions.
I trust recorded history much less than I trust scientific evidence. It is easier to forge the written word than it is to forge rocks, fosils or starlight and there is more motive to forge history.
History can be checked from different sources. Scientific evidence is open to interpretation.
There is also know reason to doubt science unless it contradicts a personal belief.
The problem with science is that it is always interpreted from a set of presuppositions, which are inseperabley intertwined with the interpretors worldview.
"The problem with science is that it is always interpreted from a set of presuppositions, which are inseperabley intertwined with the interpretors worldview."
Originally posted by dj2becker Would you ever doubt the date that is stamped on a coin?
[b]I trust recorded history much less than I trust scientific evidence. It is easier to forge the written word than it is to forge rocks, fosils or starlight and there is more motive to forge history.
Scientific evidence (with regards to origins) is always interpreted from a set of p ...[text shortened]... om a set of presuppositions, which are inseperabley intertwined with the interpretors worldview.[/b]
So how do you explain the good fit between dendrochronological data, ice core data, lake sediment data etc? We have lake sediment data that goes back 45,000 years, and ice cores that go back, layer by layer, 225,000 years. And of course, analysis of rocks that goes back 4 billion years. All corroborate each other.
Originally posted by scottishinnz So how do you explain the good fit between dendrochronological data, ice core data, lake sediment data etc? We have lake sediment data that goes back 45,000 years, and ice cores that go back, layer by layer, 225,000 years. And of course, analysis of rocks that goes back 4 billion years. All corroborate each other.
Anybody who lives in the Polar Regions would tell you that ice core layers are formed by hot and cold spells, not the seasons as you incorrectly assume. I'm sure you've heard of "The Lost Squadron". Google it. You might be surprised by how many layers of ice those P-38's got covered in, in less than a couple decades.
Originally posted by Halitose Anybody who lives in the Polar Regions would tell you that ice core layers are formed by hot and cold spells, not the seasons as you incorrectly assume. I'm sure you've heard of "The Lost Squadron". Google it. You might be surprised by how many layers of ice those P-38's got covered in, in less than a couple decades.
Hot and cold spells? Many of them at the coldest place on earth are there? Of course, the summer temperature of -30C is far warmer than the winter temperature of -65C (and down to -91C). Lost Squadron-esque things may happen at warmer places, but not there.
Originally posted by Halitose Anybody who lives in the Polar Regions would tell you that ice core layers are formed by hot and cold spells, not the seasons as you incorrectly assume. I'm sure you've heard of "The Lost Squadron". Google it. You might be surprised by how many layers of ice those P-38's got covered in, in less than a couple decades.
Originally posted by dj2becker Would you ever doubt the date that is stamped on a coin?
Yes I would doubt the date stamped on a coin. Of course it depends who is trying to sell it to me. And yes If I dated the coin scientifically I would trust the science not the date stamp.
Scientific evidence (with regards to origins) is always interpreted from a set of presuppositions. Two people can look at the same evidence and reach two totally different conclusions.
I love the "with regards to origins" bit. So if it has to do with origins then there is a different breed of scientist? Laws of physics are different? I agree with the two conclusions bit for most evidence whether it regards origins or your video clip from last week. However the old earth theory has "overwhelming" evidence and the young earth idea has absolutely zero evidence. The only presuposition made as stated earlier is that the universe was not made in such a way as to look like it was billions of years old but isnt really.(eg made last week by the spagetti monster) If that presuposition is false however your attempt to dispute the evidence are a waste of time.
History can be checked from different sources. Scientific evidence is open to interpretation. Interestingly enough the Bible (an example of recorded history) is open to far more interpretations than most scientific evidence is. The way of science is to make interpretations then test them. The way of religion is to make interpretations (usually not based on the history but on personal beliefs/needs) and then try to convince others that that is the correct interpretation. Interestingly enough the Bible has been checked from different sources (including scientific evidence) and found to be largely false or unbacked up.
The problem with science is that it is always interpreted from a set of presuppositions, which are inseperabley intertwined with the interpretors worldview. To some extent I agree but at the same time it is not a "problem with science" but actually one of its strengths as scientist recognize the presuppostions and are often open to modifying those presupositions if the evidence doesnt fit.
Originally posted by twhitehead Yes I would doubt the date stamped on a coin. Of course it depends who is trying to sell it to me. And yes If I dated the coin scientifically I would trust the science not the date stamp.
[b]Scientific evidence (with regards to origins) is always interpreted from a set of presuppositions. Two people can look at the same evidence and reach two to ppostions and are often open to modifying those presupositions if the evidence doesnt fit.
Yes, I'd also like to point out that the word "assumption" means something completely different to scientists and non-scientists. Non-scientists tend to think of assumptions as "just guesses". Scientists definition of assumption is as a best guess, based on, and backed up by, evidence and scientific models. For example, some of the assumptions that I make in my experiments are that two plants grown under identical conditions behave in the same way and will have similar photosynthetic capacities, FW : DW, etc.
Natural Selection
16 Mar '06 13:202 edits
Back to Top