-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
what gives credibility?
- Thread starter gseeker
- Start date
<yawn> ignore list </yawn>
Umm no.
gseeker
conflicted constantly
Wouldn't that be the difference between scientist and engineers? I do think the lines have been blurred. Lol
Umm what? And how does this relate to the topic at hand
gseeker
conflicted constantly
Lmfao that made me laugh! Funny man, traits of narcissism mean anything to you?
gseeker
conflicted constantly
It doesn't really relate, just a late realization on my part. Thought it was funny I never noticed that before.
Would you find an astronomer who ascribes to geo-centrism credible?
Their credibility or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether they are religious or not. You can be a Christian and a good scientist. The specific non-credibility of ID has to do with the fact that creationism itself (not the person) is a religious, rather than a scientific, belief. As I previously wrote, if they publish peer reviewed scientific papers falsifying various evolutionary claims, or showing evidence of the existence of a creative force, then their belief in creationism may gain some scientific relevance. Until then, not scientifically credible.
Last edited:
There are scientist that test the theories. What engineers usually deal with is established fact. An engineer might support the scientist in designing whatever equipment is needed to test the theories but their goal usually isn't to test theories.
Of course there is some cross over, and likely some who develop theories, test them and design the equipment needed for testing. But I think because of the amount of expertise necessary in some fields people tend to specialize.
Then why do you think you know more than all those tens of thousands of qualified geologists currently doing geology all over the world? Do you think that you are special?gseeker said:
Means very little to me as I’m not American. Are those accredited institutions or just some random religious one’s pretending to do education?gseeker said:
Which is accepted to be 4.54±0.05 billion years.gseeker said:
Maybe your creationist straw-man version of it would be circular. Luckily those trained scientists are not as stupid as you want to make them out to be.gseeker said:
It’s actually called relative dating. The methods were confirmed to have worked very well when absolute dating methods arrived.gseeker said:
You mean our method dating the organic remains of organisms? That one which is especially accurate when dating the organic remains of air-breathing organisms? That one?gseeker said:
No, environmental changes do not alter the decay rate of C14 at all. That’s constant. The half-life of C14 is 5,730 years. It doesn’t change at all when the environment changes.gseeker said:
What does have an influence is the change in rate of formation of C14 in the atmosphere and therefore the ration between C14 and C12. This is accounted for by calibration curves.
Seeing that the method is only accurate till around 60 000 years old, volcanic eruptions millions of years ago certainly won’t have an influence.gseeker said:
Oh, it is also noticed that you didn’t even answer on those untruths you told.
Last edited:
It seems as if you don't know what a theory is in science.
gseeker
conflicted constantly
First auburn is an agricultural school and is one of the best geological schools in the nation. Montana tech is a geological engineering school and is one of the hardest in the nation offering such degrees as geological engineering, mining engineering, and other earth related engineering courses.
Second while I am arguing creation and the young earth theory I am not being as specific to the age of the earth as most Christian creationists. I am arguing because I don't know for a fact the age of the earth and neither do you. By the way my conclusions are independent of the church or the collegiate institute determined on information I've studied and the evidence I've seen for myself.
So you are trying to say that nothing affects the accuracy of radiocarbon dating? Funny, that's not what I remember reading in several scientific magazines when radiocarbon dating was just starting to get popular.
Relative? My oh my that a geologist could come up with a system to relatively determine the age of the earth then find a way to prove after the fact that they were almost right on target.
People think that creationists are the only ones who try to make evidence fit a preconceived notion but we both know that scientist do the same thing. They have a hypothesis or a theory and they seek out evidence to give their hypothesis credibility and seek a way to interpret evidence to give their theory more backing.
I thought I had answered what you called lies very well.
Second while I am arguing creation and the young earth theory I am not being as specific to the age of the earth as most Christian creationists. I am arguing because I don't know for a fact the age of the earth and neither do you. By the way my conclusions are independent of the church or the collegiate institute determined on information I've studied and the evidence I've seen for myself.
So you are trying to say that nothing affects the accuracy of radiocarbon dating? Funny, that's not what I remember reading in several scientific magazines when radiocarbon dating was just starting to get popular.
Relative? My oh my that a geologist could come up with a system to relatively determine the age of the earth then find a way to prove after the fact that they were almost right on target.
People think that creationists are the only ones who try to make evidence fit a preconceived notion but we both know that scientist do the same thing. They have a hypothesis or a theory and they seek out evidence to give their hypothesis credibility and seek a way to interpret evidence to give their theory more backing.
I thought I had answered what you called lies very well.
gseeker
conflicted constantly
Oh excuse me lets change that to hypothesis if it makes you happy.
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
It's not about making evidence fit, because theories and hypotheses are testable. They make predictions, and the search to see if these predictions are true is what you might call "trying to make the evidence fit". Rather, it's about seeing whether or not the hypothesis is true. If the evidence does not match the hypothesis, the hypothesis is rewritten or discarded. Peer-review also helps scientists not to try and twist evidence, because other scientists will call them out on it.
Science is not a religion where they try to stick to ideas as long as they can, no matter if the evidence goes against it. Science adapts and tries to move forward all the time. Being proved wrong is making progress.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Oh look! A strawman!
Answer the things he wrote - don't just make stuff up. That's called dishonesty.
It's not even a hypothesis. It's just pure nonsense.
You are telling untruths about what I wrote. People can read, you know.
And yes, you did not address the lies you told and was caught out on, at all, either.
gseeker
conflicted constantly
I have answered the questions posed to me, I'm waiting for krok to answer my questions. Krok. You could just answer that as for the age of the earth geologists do not know for sure. It is the best answer you can give instead of looking surprised every few years when the newest theory places the age of the earth at a later or earlier date than was previously believed. See I don't have to prove my idea of the age of the earth because honestly I don't have one. All I have to prove is that geology isn't sure of the age of the earth either. I love it when people refer to a scientific statement as fact when that statement changes every 5 to 10 years. If you choose to ignore that then you are ignoring what a fact actually is. If geologists aren't sure of the age of the earth then the age of the earth is still open to debate. By the way, what college did you graduate from and what was your specific degree? I've met first year students who put up better arguments than you have.