Darwin would be ashamed

[Venom]

Humans are not the same as objects in other solar systems. You can perform experiments on humans. You can take any theory developed about humans and apply it if the theory is sound. You cannot perform experiments on heavenly bodies in other solar systems, and you cannot apply any theories you have about them.



Yes observation is key to creating hypotheses. If you can't test the hypothesis, then all you have is a hypothesis. It might be an interesting idea, but it's untested. Personally I don't put much confidence in ideas like this. It might make interesting conversation, but ultimately there is not much there to give confidence to the validity of the ideas.



Radioactive dating is not a theory as much as a technique. (Radioactive decay is a theory. Radioactive dating is a technique.) There can be a big difference between theory and application. In application every mathematical time projection losses accuracy the further you extrapolate. Since radioactive dating is a mathematical time projection, this applies. It must lose accuracy the further out you go, since they all do. I have serious doubts about all of the dates that are say 1 million years or more. I don't think we can accurately project what happened 1 million years ago or what will happen 1 million years from now.



This is something I will probably have to look into. I looked into some of the calculations explaining the past about 10 years ago, and I found out that other projections into the past didn't fit with the commonly explained view. I don't think ocean crust creation was one I looked into, but that is the sort of thing I look for. I.e. if we do projections into the past based on ocean crust creation do the dates synch up to the radioactive decay dates?

What I've found so far is that the dates don't match up most of the time. Most biologists and geologists seem to take the math for granted, at least that is what it looks like to me. If I can find enough models which actually match radioactive decay then I will probably be convinced, but what I usually find is evidence to give me less confidence in how the past is explained.

so basically, radioactive decay, element half lives, astronomy...its all WAY too speculative for you...you know, because we cant be there to observe it...

...but the 2000 year ago resurrection of a jew, claiming to be the son of God, who walked on water, and rose on the third day to save us from the sins God created us to commit, by telling us to "telepathically" tell him we believe in him to save the soul, which by some unknown mechanism is subject to pharmacological compounds, yet still its own special untestable entity....etc....etc....Not too far out at all!

along the lines of your astronomy doubts: were you there 2000 years ago to do experiments and run tests? oh thats right: you use inference.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

All results from experiments is simply data.

If you make an observation, create a hypothesis, any search for evidence is an experiment. If you observe the creation of a star and observe the conclusion, you create a hypothesis of intermediate steps. Then, you look for them. If you find them, then the hypothesis is evidenced and gains support. It's not different than experimentation. In many ways there is more information available for astronomers than human experimenters, so to speak.

Is it weaker than being able to run infinite controlled experiments? Yes... but the original point is that time cannot be generalized- in many cases we can see back a long long way (ie: to the start of the universe) or have a actual archive of information (ie: genetics). It is possible to trace back and understand underlying conditions.

You're right that data is better than no data however its obtained. Without a test though the door is left wide open for confirmation bias. Experimentation and (even better) application are good tests for theories. That's how you know if the idea really has merit. Before then the person forming the idea could just be fooling themselves.

Either elements have the half-lives we believe them to or they don't. If they do, dating is a matter of basic 7th grade algebra. I don't see how "mathematical projections" would come into play.

You're missing my point. You think the only complication is in knowing the half-life? It's not. Real world data always has noise. The further you project, the bigger the effect of noise. Every curve that models data is only a best fit curve. It doesn't fit exactly. It's an approximation. The further you project the greater the inaccuracy until there is no accuracy at all.

so basically, radioactive decay, element half lives, astronomy...its all WAY too speculative for you...you know, because we cant be there to observe it...

...but the 2000 year ago resurrection of a jew, claiming to be the son of God, who walked on water, and rose on the third day to save us from the sins God created us to commit, by telling us to "telepathically" tell him we believe in him to save the soul, which by some unknown mechanism is subject to pharmacological compounds, yet still its own special untestable entity....etc....etc....Not too far out at all!

along the lines of your astronomy doubts: were you there 2000 years ago to do experiments and run tests? oh thats right: you use inference.

Heh, you are confusing science and religion. Science should be judged by scientific standards and religion should be judged by religious standards.

However, in a religious context there are actually tests you can perform and practical applications from the ideas. You can test if the ideas have merit and then apply them. I think the same should be true of a scientific context. Scientific ideas should be falsifiable, and they should be able to be applied in new ways. That shows that the idea actually has credibility.

 

[Mycroft]

You're missing my point. You think the only complication is in knowing the half-life? It's not. Real world data always has noise. The further you project, the bigger the effect of noise. Every curve that models data is only a best fit curve. It doesn't fit exactly. It's an approximation. The further you project the greater the inaccuracy until there is no accuracy at all.

Again, so long as the half-lives have been arrived at correctly, the equation is simple, leaving very little room for error. If you can demonstrate either that:

1.) the half-lives of the elements have not been arrived at correctly, or
2.) the manner in which the presence of these elements is being detected is inaccurate

...the scientific community would be greatly in your debt. Presently I don't see how whatever it is that you're alluding to is relevant.

 

[ptgatsby]

You're right that data is better than no data however its obtained. Without a test though the door is left wide open for confirmation bias. Experimentation and (even better) application are good tests for theories. That's how you know if the idea really has merit. Before then the person forming the idea could just be fooling themselves.

And that differs from someone setting up their own experiment to prove their own hypothesis? Just as others can do the experiment, so can others find more evidence.

 

[Venom]

.

Heh, you are confusing science and religion. Science should be judged by scientific standards and religion should be judged by religious standards.

However, in a religious context there are actually tests you can perform and practical applications from the ideas. You can test if the ideas have merit and then apply them. I think the same should be true of a scientific context. Scientific ideas should be falsifiable, and they should be able to be applied in new ways. That shows that the idea actually has credibility.

but religion has no standards!

Religion generally is:
1. unfalsifiable (anything that God does is explainable as "God works in mysterious ways")
2. has no mechanism (ie 'magic')
3. makes no testable predictions

So by normal standards of ANY theory, its bullshit. so what 'standards' does religion claim to follow?

There is no: "thats the realm of science and thats the realm of religion". They both claim to describe the world we live in...the difference is that science adheres to standards and describes actaul atom interaction, where as religion describes immaterial interactions (ie no atom interaction, ie the interactions of NOTHINGS)

 

[01011010]

...but the 2000 year ago resurrection of a jew, claiming to be the son of God, who walked on water, and rose on the third day to save us from the sins God created us to commit, by telling us to "telepathically" tell him we believe in him to save the soul, which by some unknown mechanism is subject to pharmacological compounds, yet still its own special untestable entity....etc....etc....Not too far out at all!

Why can't you wrap your mind around that?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Again, so long as the half-lives have been arrived at correctly, the equation is simple, leaving very little room for error. If you can demonstrate either that:

1.) the half-lives of the elements have not been arrived at correctly, or
2.) the manner in which the presence of these elements is being detected is inaccurate

...the scientific community would be greatly in your debt. Presently I don't see how whatever it is that you're alluding to is relevant.

As I've said in my reply to Antisocial One, I haven't found much verification for radioactive dating using other models. If I were going to look again I'd look at something like the growth rate of the ocean crust and see if the dates actually matched. You might have lots of faith in radioactive dating, but I like to see that it has independent verification from other models.

And that differs from someone setting up their own experiment to prove their own hypothesis? Just as others can do the experiment, so can others find more evidence.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I see experimentation as different from simple observation. And what is most important to me is application. When a theory is applied, that is when I consider it to be fairly solid.

but religion has no standards!

Religion generally is:
1. unfalsifiable (anything that God does is explainable as "God works in mysterious ways")
2. has no mechanism (ie 'magic')
3. makes no testable predictions

So by normal standards of ANY theory, its bullshit. so what 'standards' does religion claim to follow?

Religion does have standards. I believe Joseph Campbell stated some standards to judge how effective a religion is. Apart from that though, most religions actually give standards for how they are to be judged. For example to test Christianity Jesus says, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." In other words if you sincerely strive to follow his teaching then you will know whether or not there is anything to it. He is actually inviting people to test him. Therefore it is falsifiable, because a test is given. It isn't falsifiable by scientific standards, but by religious standards.

There is no: "thats the realm of science and thats the realm of religion". They both claim to describe the world we live in...the difference is that science adheres to standards and describes actaul atom interaction, where as religion describes immaterial interactions (ie no atom interaction, ie the interactions of NOTHINGS)

Heh for the most part religion and science don't have much to do with one another. They have two totally different purposes. Any place where they might bump heads is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Nonsensical]

Scientists have fossils to back it up, it's out of arrogance that the majority of people don't accept it..it's our of sheer stupidity..I mean, come on..you learn this stuff in like 6th grade.

 

[Mycroft]

As I've said in my reply to Antisocial One, I haven't found much verification for radioactive dating using other models. If I were going to look again I'd look at something like the growth rate of the ocean crust and see if the dates actually matched. You might have lots of faith in radioactive dating, but I like to see that it has independent verification from other models.

The lack of verification on the basis of other models is irrelevant. Either the process is flawed or it is not. If it is flawed, and you can demonstrate such, then you ought to do so. The scientific community would be greatly in your debt.

If you're going to question a well-established scientific method, you're going to have to do better than some personal theory that you can't even adequately communicate to others.

Heh for the most part religion and science don't have much to do with one another. They have two totally different purposes. Any place where they might bump heads is the exception rather than the rule.

Name one thing that religion addresses that is in no way relevant to science.

 

[Kangirl]

 

[Venom]

Religion does have standards. I believe Joseph Campbell stated some standards to judge how effective a religion is. Apart from that though, most religions actually give standards for how they are to be judged. For example to test Christianity Jesus says, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." In other words if you sincerely strive to follow his teaching then you will know whether or not there is anything to it. He is actually inviting people to test him. Therefore it is falsifiable, because a test is given. It isn't falsifiable by scientific standards, but by religious standards.

Heh for the most part religion and science don't have much to do with one another. They have two totally different purposes. Any place where they might bump heads is the exception rather than the rule.

Bible basically says: "sex before marriage immoral. you'll live a better life without it".

how is that something thats "falsifiable" (to religious people)? even if i gather empirical evidence that shows that people can have happy marriages with sex happening before the marriage, will you admit that part of the bible to be flawed? no, you wont. Because you'll simply explain that data away with "they are just giving into the flesh/arent REALLY happy living of the flesh/think how much happier they MIGHT be" etc etc.

Prayer, there HAVE been empiracal studies to show wether or not it works.

yet you can just explain it away with "God didnt want to help, because then he'd be lowering himself to ur selfish desire for proof". again, no matter what evidence we gather on wether prayer works or not, how moral self identified christians actaully behave in comparison to non believers, how many bad things happen to believers vs non believers etc its all explained away with "God works in mysterious ways" or "He's just testing the believers". Unfalsifiable.


Basically, the religious standard is:
1. how useful is it to society to adopt these ideas?
legitimate: but see "dark ages"

2. how does it make you feel? (do you "feel good" when following jesus)
not legitimate: feelings mean nothing when talking about truth and non truth.

Heh for the most part religion and science don't have much to do with one another. They have two totally different purposes. Any place where they might bump heads is the exception rather than the rule.

thats the problem! people give religion a free pass because they mistakenly believe it to be "separate". this just simply isnt true. adopting a religious world view leads to different conclusions about A LOT of political, moral, legal, social and scientific issues.

example: if people (avg joe people) weren't religious, would they honestly have ANY reason what so ever to be challenging evolution? Dont you think there'd be scientists (you know, professionals) lining up the wazoo for their chance at a nobel prize by disproving the "clearly flawed" theory? You really think NO scientist would have any interest in winning that nobel prize? Religion IS affecting the realm of science, because they both have far reaching implications

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

The lack of verification on the basis of other models is irrelevant. Either the process is flawed or it is not. If it is flawed, and you can demonstrate such, then you ought to do so. The scientific community would be greatly in your debt.

Ok this makes no sense. How do you know that radioactive dating is the right model if it doesn't agree with any of the others. It's picked arbitrarily.

Name one thing that religion addresses that is in no way relevant to science.

Morality.

Bible basically says: "sex before marriage immoral. you'll live a better life without it".

how is that something thats "falsifiable" (to religious people)? even if i gather empirical evidence that shows that people can have happy marriages with sex happening before the marriage, will you admit that part of the bible to be flawed? no, you wont. Because you'll simply explain that data away with "they are just giving into the flesh/arent REALLY happy living of the flesh/think how much happier they MIGHT be" etc etc.

If you're going to argue what the Bible says then you should actually know what you're talking about. This example you give shows that you don't actually know what you are talking about. Part of the main message of the Bible is that if you live life by following a bunch of rules then you'll be miserable. And I don't mean that it's just one thing it says. It's the main message.

On the other hand you've ignored my point in the previous post. The Bible gives falsifiable criteria. Just follow the criteria and then you'll know.

Science also gives falsifiable criteria. The problem I have with science is when it doesn't follow it's own criteria. People in this thread have been saying "no need to test our ideas about the past". I say yes, science should be falsifiable. We should test whether or not the ideas are true. Ideas which are not falsifiable are simply bad science.

 

[Costrin]

If you're going to argue what the Bible says then you should actually know what you're talking about. This example you give shows that you don't actually know what you are talking about. Part of the main message of the Bible is that if you live life by following a bunch of rules then you'll be miserable. And I don't mean that it's just one thing it says. It's the main message.

What about all the other main messages that other people profess it to have instead?

 

[Mycroft]

Ok this makes no sense. How do you know that radioactive dating is the right model if it doesn't agree with any of the others. It's picked arbitrarily.

Yes; it came down to element-based dating or tea-leaf reading, but scientists decided on the former by flip of the coin.

That you genuinely believe this sort of bunk is symptomatic of the psychology you possess that allows you to buy into religion.

Morality.

Ah yes, the "without religion why be good?" chestnut. The question of why human beings behave toward one another in the manner that they do is related to our evolution as a social species, which is certainly a question of science.

Also, you keep saying religion has falsifiable criteria, so out with them already. What are they?

 

[Venom]

If you're going to argue what the Bible says then you should actually know what you're talking about. This example you give shows that you don't actually know what you are talking about. Part of the main message of the Bible is that if you live life by following a bunch of rules then you'll be miserable. And I don't mean that it's just one thing it says. It's the main message.

On the other hand you've ignored my point in the previous post. The Bible gives falsifiable criteria. Just follow the criteria and then you'll know.

Science also gives falsifiable criteria. The problem I have with science is when it doesn't follow it's own criteria. People in this thread have been saying "no need to test our ideas about the past". I say yes, science should be falsifiable. We should test whether or not the ideas are true. Ideas which are not falsifiable are simply bad science.

oh no! not another "i only read the new testament"

fine then, if the rules dont matter, then the main point of the bible would be: "telepathically tell jesus that your sorry, and you'll get a glorious new body".

how in the world is telepathy and post-death transformation falsifiable???

The Bible gives falsifiable criteria.

-earth 6000 years old? false
-creationism? false

Ancient civilizations
The Bible mentions many ancient civilizations that no longer exist today. If any archaeologist can show that any of those ancient civilizations never existed, then the Bible is shown to be false. In the nineteenth century, many scoffers maintained that no such civilization as Assyria exists or existed. Then archaeologists discovered Nineveh, the ancient capital city of Assyria, and the first of many monuments of that civilization and many of its most prominent rulers.
Ancient prophesies

The Bible predicts many events centuries before those events came to pass. If any one of them did not come to pass exactly as predicted, then the Bible is shown to be false. Again, many have tried; all have failed. Many have suggested that the prophecies of the Bible were all written after-the-fact. This is false; the Dead Sea Scrolls contain manuscripts of many prophetic works, all of which predict events that have come to pass often centuries later. Never once in any such case has anyone shown that an event did not come to pass.
Historicity of Jesus

Main Article: Historicity of Jesus

Jesus Christ is the best-attested Figure in all of human history. If any part of His life did not take place as stated, then the Bible is false. No one has yet shown that the Bible misrepresents any part of Jesus' story.

the main problem with all of these claims to being falsefiable is that they are relying on two things:

-lack of negative evidence, rather than relying on positive evidence:
"until someone can show that these ancient societies didn't exist, then the Bible is true!"

"until someone can prove that my martian ice cream truck never existed, then the flying spaghetti monster is TRUE!"


-The Gone With the Wind Fallacy:
if people dig up and prove that Atlanta was a real place in 2000 years, that in no way proves that Gone with the wind was a true story. even if suddenly people actually found less dubious evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus, it doesnt prove that anything written about him is true.



Further:
-the egyptains took METICULOUS records of their kingdom, and have shown no remorse for recording embarrassing things, and yet there is no egyptain evidence for exodus.
-if you actaully go look for these supposed "attesting to jesus records" there isnt much as far as 3rd party historians... Josephus is the best thing they have, and even that is...shaky...at best.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

@Babylon Candle: Are you even replying to me anymore? You seem to be arguing with a person that you've created. Should I assume that you have no answer to my points, and you'd rather argue against a straw man that you've created?

Yes; it came down to element-based dating or tea-leaf reading, but scientists decided on the former by flip of the coin.

That you genuinely believe this sort of bunk is symptomatic of the psychology you possess that allows you to buy into religion.

Yes I believe in mathematical models, and I also believe they become more credible when independent models agree. I suppose you classify that sort of thing as "voodoo" or "witchcraft" in the similar vein that you refer to the use of formal logic.

Ah yes, the "without religion why be good?" chestnut. The question of why human beings behave toward one another in the manner that they do is related to our evolution as a social species, which is certainly a question of science.

Heh, you remind me of the dad from My Big Fat Greek Wedding. "Every word comes from Greek. Let me trace back kimono...." You can make all questions root back to science in the same way.

Also, you keep saying religion has falsifiable criteria, so out with them already. What are they?

I already did. See post 127.

 

[Venom]

@Babylon Candle: Are you even replying to me anymore? You seem to be arguing with a person that you've created. Should I assume that you have no answer to my points, and you'd rather argue against a straw man that you've created?

ur response to me previously amounted to: "the bible IS falsifiable."

The "strawmen" were used only because you refused to bring forth your own examples of falsifiable claims made by the bible (thus i had to go look for them).

In other words if you sincerely strive to follow his teaching then you will know whether or not there is anything to it.

...so then i try and bring in some of his teachings and how we could test them... (ie premarital sex really being all that bad) and you flipped a bitch!

please give an explicit example of something that is falsefiable in the bible by means other than "there has been no negative evidence discovered yet"

 

[Costrin]

For example to test Christianity Jesus says, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." In other words if you sincerely strive to follow his teaching then you will know whether or not there is anything to it. He is actually inviting people to test him. Therefore it is falsifiable, because a test is given. It isn't falsifiable by scientific standards, but by religious standards.

And if it doesn't work, its because you weren't trying sincerely enough?

 

[Mycroft]

Yes I believe in mathematical models, and I also believe they become more credible when independent models agree. I suppose you classify that sort of thing as "voodoo" or "witchcraft" in the similar vein that you refer to the use of formal logic.

Methods and models stand or fall on the basis of their own merits. It's certainly reaffirming when independent models buttress one another, but this is not a requisite. Carbon-based dating, for example, relies on the accuracy of the believed half-life for carbon and the procedures by which the presence of carbon is detected in objects. If you can demonstrate that either the manner in which the half-life of carbon has been arrived at is flawed or that the manner in which the presence of carbon is detected is inaccurate, you will have a good case on your hands. Constantly alluding to "mathematical models" does not accomplish this. All you are doing is drawing irrelevant tangents into the proceedings, a basic logical flaw.

Secondly, I have not referred to formal logic as "voodoo". What I have, accurately, stated is that you have as of yet failed to divulge the premises and logic upon which you have based your beliefs. Rather, you've stated, in so many words, that you believe in God because "[you] can feel his presence" and whenever I've pushed you to state your premises and outline your logic, you've airily alluded to formal logic this, mathematics that, and otherwise evaded the duty.

It is this which makes you no different from every shaman in the course of man's history who duped his gullible fellow-villagers into bringing food to his hut, freeing his time up to snack on the local hallucinogen, by invoking an "other form" of understanding which defies ration and expression and which, incidentally, he possesses. (While, meanwhile, the men of ration were discovering that planting seeds resulted in harvests.)

Heh, you remind me of the dad from My Big Fat Greek Wedding. "Every word comes from Greek. Let me trace back kimono...." You can make all questions root back to science in the same way.

"Irrelevant humor" is classified as an informal fallacy. Thank you for this excellent demonstration of it.

 

[Kangirl]

I think we should launch a petition to have ANYONE posting things that boil down to "prove it *isn't*" publically shamed and pelted with wet noodles and rotten veggies. I'll sign it.

People guilty of this - it isn't a valid argument. It never was, and it never will be. This is not my personal opinion, it is the truth. Stop doing it. Please, for the love of all that is good and right.

I am enjoying the carbon dating argument, though. Not that there is an argument, of course. Mycroft, I have no idea how you maintain your tone and at the same time maintain your cranial integrity. My head would have exploded pages ago.