The Problem with Science as a Substitute

[nereas]

Goodness no! This is some of the funniest stuff I have seen in quite a while. Pseudophilosophy is fascinating.

Pseudo-science and neophyte-scientists I find equally as amusing as well.

What I find annoying and troubling however is atheists who make science their religion. This is apparently because they do not themselves pack the gear to be sincerely atheist.

A sincere atheist has no substitutes. They believe in nothing.

Amateur atheists on the other hand are amusing in their self-contradictions.

 

[Tassie_Rohan]

Your logic fallacy is called "confirming the subsequent," popularly known as begging the question.

All the methods that you mention are based upon the same inherent underlying assumptions.

If you slept through the "underlying assumptions" lecture of your chem Ph.D. curriculum, then you are simply in the same boat as Thal, who worships science, and pays no attention to its limitations.

This is precisely the fallacy of making science your substitute for religion. And treating it precisely as a religion, infallible, infinite, perfect and complete.

Go through your chem books and look it up the limitations and assumptions of carbon dating methods, and if you are smart, then you can find it on your own. ["Only the laws of physics," what a neophyte joke!]

Cheers & G'day mate.

G'day there Nereas -


Can you help me: what assumption exactly are you saying is wrong? Also – what evidence do you have it is wrong (whatever assumption it may be)? Please spell it out rather than palm it off with vague ‘look it up you are all ignorant’ personal snipes.

The great thing about science is that it is fallible and it certainly isn't complete, perfect or infinite: that’s how we improve theories. So help us and please tell us exactly what the problem is. Again – there are many more isotope pairs used in radiometric dating than just carbon 14/carbon 12, so an answer would have to fit all.

I am genuinely interested in what this mysterious incorrect assumption actually is.

I’ll take a stab and guess you are claiming that the decay constant varies over time. To fit the 50-60,000 maximum ages recorded with C14/C12 into a 6000 age we would need to speed the decay of carbon 14 by 10 times. However to fit in the 4.5 billion year radiometric ages for Achaean rocks into 6000 years we would have to speed up the decay of U238 into Pb206 and U235 into Pb207 by 75,000 times.

Such a rapid increase in the past should be noticeable. For instance radioactive decay provides earths heat source – keeping the mantle nice and molten. Fitting the observed 4,500,000,000 years of radioactive decay into a mere 6000 years, producing 75,000 times the normal background radiation, would not only nuke the inhabitants of a biblical earth, the corresponding increase in heat would melt the crust. Something that would be noticed by inhabitants of a biblical arcadia don’t you think?

Are there any plagues of radiation sickness or records of lava lakes in the Bible?

Cheers,
Rohan.

 

[adurso]

Pseudo-science and neophyte-scientists I find equally as amusing as well.

What I find annoying and troubling however is atheists who make science their religion. This is apparently because they do not themselves pack the gear to be sincerely atheist.

A sincere atheist has no substitutes. They believe in nothing.

Amateur atheists on the other hand are amusing in their self-contradictions.

A nihilist believes in nothing, in that existance is without meaning and that there is no proof of a higher being, and if there were there is no moral obligation to worship him/her/it.

An atheist believes there is no god; or rejects all gods.

Unless you believe in Ghu, Neptune, Zeus, or a whole pantheon of others, you, also are an atheist.

 

[nereas]

A nihilist believes in nothing, in that existance is without meaning and that there is no proof of a higher being, and if there were there is no moral obligation to worship him/her/it.

An atheist believes there is no god; or rejects all gods.

Unless you believe in Ghu, Neptune, Zeus, or a whole pantheon of others, you, also are an atheist.

Adurso, thanks for the clarifications. I fail to see any difference between nihilism and true atheism.

As for myself, I definitely believe in a whole pantheon with many sheep and shepherds. And I would expect atheists on the other hand to be complete nihilist. And if they cannot fathom nihilism, then they too are simply sheep but in nihilist costumes only.

 

[nereas]

...

I’ll take a stab and guess you are claiming that the decay constant varies over time. ...

Cheers,
Rohan.

That would be a really bad guess, Tassee. Decay rates are practically laws of physics. You see, that was Thal's guess as well.

Try reviewing your chemistry books, rather than guessing. Or else all you will come up with is more red herrings or strawmen.

 

[Sas]

That would be a really bad guess, Tassee. Decay rates are practically laws of physics. You see, that was Thal's guess as well.

Try reviewing your chemistry books, rather than guessing. Or else all you will come up with is more red herrings or strawmen.

Are you being deliberately obtuse nereas? That seems to be the only explanation I can find for your posts as you continue to ignore direct questions completely. Or I guess the only other explanation is that you have no idea what you are talking about. If everyone is guessing wrong why don't you tell us exactly what is wrong with the assumptions? Prove my second explanation wrong

So far you have not made any comments as to any assumption other than to say they are wrong. Please, do answer the question directly.

 

[nereas]

Are you being deliberately obtuse nereas? That seems to be the only explanation I can find for your posts as you continue to ignore direct questions completely. Or I guess the only other explanation is that you have no idea what you are talking about. If everyone is guessing wrong why don't you tell us exactly what is wrong with the assumptions? Prove my second explanation wrong

So far you have not made any comments as to any assumption other than to say they are wrong. Please, do answer the question directly.

As Confucius said, "to travel is better than to arrive."

Most of these bozos just want to argue, dear sweet Saspotato. And this in spite of their own weak argument skills and feeble illogical minds.

I figure, if they are forced to search their chem books, or else be tortured by their own self doubt, then once they discover the answer in their chem books then they will at last appreciate the limitations of science as a substitute for religion.

Confucius also said never to argue with a bozo because other people listening might not be able to tell the difference. It's the same principle as getting into a dung fight with a monkey or mud wrestling with a pig. Either way, you get stinky and dirty, only the monkey or pig enjoyes it more.

If I come to Cairns I would be happy to have dinner with you at a pub, and answer all of your sincere questions, dear sweet Saspo.

But the rest of these, bozos, I want them to work at it, instead. I know that is not the answer you are looking for, though. C'est la vive.

I thought some of them might actually know science. That has sure proved to be wrong, however!

 

[Tassie_Rohan]

Nereas, Mate:

All you have to do is put fingers to keyboard and spell out what this mysterious assumption is.

I kid you not: if you have something that disproves radiometric dating you will be on the cover of Time Magazine and New Scientist this time next year.

I really am genuinely interested what this discovery is.

Cheers,
Rohan.

 

[nereas]

Nereas, Mate:

All you have to do is put fingers to keyboard and spell out what this mysterious assumption is.

I kid you not: if you have something that disproves radiometric dating you will be on the cover of Time Magazine and New Scientist this time next year.

I really am genuinely interested what this discovery is.

Cheers,
Rohan.

Good. Then break out your chem books and start re-reading.

 

[Tassie_Rohan]

Most of these bozos just want to argue, dear sweet Saspotato. And this in spite of their own weak argument skills and feeble illogical minds..

Nereas - your argument skills seem to consist of:

Calling people names
Avoiding direct questions
Rambling on about some vague undisclosed 'thing' that is evidence for your case.


How about just one direct answer? I’ll make it easy:

Question 1. 100 points. No time limit:

I, Nereas, believe that radiometric dating has seriously overestimated the age of the earth because.... _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[insert your answer here]