{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/31/2015 8:13:39 PM
25
Then why does everyone freak out if you question anything about it?
English
-
If you're referring to the most basic and widely accepted scientific principles that people question because they contradict religious beliefs then they deserve it. Imagine if you walked into math class and started arguing with the teacher about how you don't believe in PEMDAS. Everyone would just think you're an idiot. Why is this any different?
-
See argument below.. No religious person knowledgable in science would ever contradict observable findings.. Newtons laws etc. but historical science is much different as we can't observe it and this is the only area of science that creationists and athiest scientists differ
-
Edited by Vicex: 3/31/2015 10:51:47 PMOh -blam!- off. Saying, "since we didn't see it happen, we don't know it happen and all other theories are valid" is absolute proof you know nothing of science. No, we can't always prove something through observation... But something we can do? Infer from evidence. Since we are rational beings..(or at least some of us) we can look at evidence that we can observe and use that neat human ability to make connections, find patterns, and draw correct inferences. It is because of this, we can say that the "historical science" topic... Like evolution... Is most certainly valid... Especially to other ridiculous claims like the joke that is creationism.
-
I'm not saying because we didn't observe it it didn't happen... I'm saying that the means by which we calculate our findings have unknown variables... See, this is what I don't like, people get on a high horse thinking they are just discussing with an idiot when this is what the main OPs post is about.. Being open minded...
-
There is no need to tolerate such obvious flaws of thought. Should we tolerate someone who denies the holocaust? No. Those who deny facts, or very well supported ideas in favour of ridiculous notions should not be tolerated and ought to be called out on their stupidity.
-
Haha wow.. your greatly falling pray to the straw man fallacy of arguments
-
Edited by Vicex: 4/1/2015 12:44:59 AMThat's not a fallacy, though with your obvious lack of intelligence I can see why you'd think that. You: "evolution probably isn't true because we were not there to see it, so we can't say for sure that it happened that way- it could just as well have happened because of a god" Someone else: "the Holocaust probably didn't happen, because none of us were there to see it, so we can't say for sure it happened- it could just as well be a ploy by anti-German countries." See the difference? No? That's because there isn't one. Both lines of thought reject hard lines of fact/evidence simply because of they fact X,Y,and Z were not there to see it happen and play out the way we suspect they did... And so both 'arguments' (if you'd dare call them that) substitute hard evidence with daft fantasies with absolute nothing backing there validity. And you are telling me that we should tolerate that? It is absolutely okay to question science... But when you equate something like creationism with evolution, and say both are equally valid- you've just shit all over science and logical thought and deserve no mercy in the impending rebuttals that points out how much of an idiot you are for doing so.
-
Yeah I should have read all that before I made my comment. Sorry. My friend is very scientifically savvy and he was telling me he basically thought the same thing as you. I don't really know much about carbon dating but I would imagine it would be difficult for big holes like these not to be exposed considering how widely-known they are.
-
Right.. I just wish I had the time to dive deep into it.. Because there are scientists that disagree.. And I'm worried about main stream science like the evidence of autism with vaccinations that was proven faulty... What if there is more?
-
What do you mean mainstream science? [u]One[/u] person did a horrible study that wasn't peer reviewed, and the media ran with it before the scientific community could fact check. For the "scientists" that disagree with 97% of the worlds scientific community, you will find that their experiments and studies have the same credibility as the guy who did the vaccine study.
-
Because they are baseless questions normally. Get some evidence to back up what your saying and then some will listen. But most people questioning science don't understand it or don't like what it has to say.
-
Well Iv questioned our dating methods before.. Carbon dating for instance.. 1. We would need to know the amount of carbon 14 isotope in our atmosphere and there is no way of knowing except my extrapolating data collected only from our lifetime 2. Half life's are probabilities themselves 3. Carbon will deplete to an unreadable amount after about 20,000 years, though Iv read it's 40,000 and 15,000 depending on the source... These are 3 off the top of my head.. But people get upset when I even try to discuss this and just say, "it's science"
-
1) I don't know why that is an issue 2) Half-lives are math. It's the same thing as asking if someone eats one apple a day, how many will they eat in a year. 3 We don't use Carbon to date rocks over about 2500 years old, we use potassium and uranium (I'm forgetting the isotopes at the moment).
-
No it's not like adding up 365 apples haha, it's a probability, there's a Big difference. Yes probabilities are math, i took probability, and they can be used effectively, but I'm just saying, do people even research these scientific findings for themselves or just believe them because someone else found them and why can't we discuss it without people getting offended. And yeah uranium a isotope is longer but the same unknowns apply, (the starting point) and it still reaches an end of life where it's unmeasurable just like carbon...
-
Unfortunately, I think most people just accept the science without explanation, but it's not as if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. And my understanding of measuring half-life was by differentiating between two isotopes of an element, where one decays into the other, with each half-life that passes resulting in a certain time. The ratio of the stable isotope to the unstable isotope shows how many half-lives have passed. Let me know if this is correct, I try to educate myself but I am willing to admit when I'm wrong.
-
Edited by SPRTN89: 3/31/2015 10:23:21 PMYes take carbon 14s half life is roughly 5000 years I believe so, the amount of carbon 14 in an animal or human whatever, halfs in that time, but it's not exact.. It's not a linear scale since scientists can't exactly predict the behavior of the extra neutrons.. So There is a probability that the carbon 14 will become carbon 12, It's not a guaranteed ratio.. But in order to use the half life, scientists had to give it some value to work with (~5000 yrs) but when 5000 years hits it could only be (1/3) gone based on probable happenings of the carbon 14 giving up its neutron... This is my understanding of it... And some may argue that it wouldn't be off by that much but the true error in any dating is the starting point When mount Saint Helens blew and created new rock scientists used argon dating that placed the rocks up to 350,000 years old.. When they were freshly made a few years prior.. Without knowing the starting point of the isotope levels it's impossible to say
-
Okay, so it sounds like it's imprecise, but to a point where the discrepancy is almost negligible. Especially when most rocks are being dated over 10000 years old.
-
Did you see my post about the newly formed rocks on mount saint Helens? Using the same formula they showed an age using argon dating of 350,000 years old... When they were made fresh a few years before
-
Edited by DecrepitDragon: 4/3/2015 8:48:40 PM[quote].....When they were made fresh a few years before[/quote] What? Um, I think your getting confused between "formed" or "created", and "changed state" or "blew up".... The rocks that were tested would have been present, in one form or another, for 350000 years. Warming them up a little and throwing them half a mile away, won't change their chemical properties. That's how I understand the process. (and I accept I could be inaccurate). Or are you now trying to suggest the world could be only 2000 years old? [i]Edit to correct over-zealous auto correct.[/i]
-
Yeah, and the half-life is 1.3 billion years. Using the wrong dating methods is not indicative of problems with the method, especially when the materials of the rock were formed long before being reduced to slag.
-
Why does the half life have anything to do with dating rock from mount saint Helens post eruption? Any dating method should do since the rock is new..
-
Okay, so you should use kilometers to measure a penny. Won't be inaccurate at all.
-
So science admits to flawed dating paradigm when it doesn't favor an old earth but not when it does? I don't know why they used argon but I'm guessing is it was because it was more abundant?
-
The dating methods are very specific to a geologic timescale. I would also like to know who conducted the dating.
-
I think we need to invest more in science so we can reexamine more of this stuff and dive deeper into other things. But currently there might not be enough science to question these things. As more foreign countries become more developed and start doing their own science we will find some things to be wrong and reaffirm other things to be right.
