The Theory of Evolution

[spitfire]

I know. Its probably because you would see things that would ruin your faith in science that no scientist holds.

There is no faith with science. Don't be ridiculous. There is only knowledge based on evidence.

Did you even bother to check my post about how evolution helps the understanding of health? Watch the videos. They are quite interesting and very helpful in understanding.

You know that there is no way for humanity to return to the dark ages, so why do you bother in the first place?

[Risto the Great]

I was hoping you could prove the statement that scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge we have about the natural world - if indeed you also mean the history of the natural world.

PROVE: to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument.

(interesting method of debate).

Not a debate. It was a question. You still haven't answered it by the way. Perhaps I should say you only "partly" answered it. The rest is just distracting fluff. Perhaps you can answer my question if you want. We might even debate it later.

Or maybe I can sound something like you and say "if you don't, I will assume you are mentally spasticated and proven wrong for the umpteenth time".

Here it is again:

Are you suggesting theological knowledge is better than scientific knowledge in terms of reliability in understanding the natural world?
Something more satisfying than "partly" please.

[Vangelovski]

Not a debate. It was a question. You still haven't answered it by the way. Perhaps I should say you only "partly" answered it. The rest is just distracting fluff. Perhaps you can answer my question if you want. We might even debate it later.

Here it is again:

Are you suggesting theological knowledge is better than scientific knowledge in terms of reliability in understanding the natural world?
Something more satisfying than "partly" please.

My answer was as good as any answer you have ever provided me with. By your own standards that should be sufficient. If you try answering something for me for once, I might consider going into more detail like I usually do. But until then, I'll just give what I'm given.

Or maybe I can sound something like you and say "if you don't, I will assume you are mentally spasticated and proven wrong for the umpteenth time".

That was not the intended meaning. I apologise if you took it that way.

[Vangelovski]

There is no faith with science. Don't be ridiculous. There is only knowledge based on evidence.

Did you even bother to check my post about how evolution helps the understanding of health? Watch the videos. They are quite interesting and very helpful in understanding.

You know that there is no way for humanity to return to the dark ages, so why do you bother in the first place?

Haven't you realised that you're boring me...?

[Phoenix]

...Let me ask you something (though I know you won't answer, you never do) - are you saying that we should not question or test assumptions used by scientists? Isn't that the complete anti-thesis of scientific discovery?

Who on Earth told you that we shouldn't question or test assumptions?

[Vangelovski]

Who on Earth told you that we shouldn't question or test assumptions?

You've been jumping down my throat ever since I noted that many scientific theories are based on unprovable assumptions and that science itself is based on unprovable assumptions. How else am I supposed to take that?

If you agree that we should question and test scientific assumptions, then why all of the opposition to the mere statement of their existence?

[spitfire]

Haven't you realised that you're boring me...?

Well maybe science is boring when compared to witch burning but at least be fair and give it a try.

[spitfire]

Who on Earth told you that we shouldn't question or test assumptions?

That's the problem. He thinks he was told by someone in heaven, not earth...

[Phoenix]

You've been jumping down my throat ever since I noted that many scientific theories are based on unprovable assumptions and that science itself is based on unprovable assumptions. How else am I supposed to take that?

If you agree that we should question and test scientific assumptions, then why all of the opposition to the mere statement of their existence?

That's exactly what science does, peer review ensures that everything is questioned.
I don't believe that's the issue with you...everyone accepts the 'assumptions' argument and it's place in most scientific endeavor, you're the one hanging your hat on the 'assumptions' argument as a reason to bury your head in the sand, regarding anything that questions the word of the Bible.

That's why you don't believe in carbon dating, that's why the 'assumptions' are your get out clause because many scientific disciplines put the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years old...you won't have none of that...so you look to prise open and magnify even the slightest statistical anomaly in the science of carbon dating to essentially demonize the very science itself.

[Vangelovski]

That's exactly what science does, peer review ensures that everything is questioned.
I don't believe that's the issue with you...everyone accepts the 'assumptions' argument and it's place in most scientific endeavor, you're the one hanging your hat on the 'assumptions' argument as a reason to bury your head in the sand, regarding anything that questions the word of the Bible.

That's why you don't believe in carbon dating, that's why the 'assumptions' are your get out clause because many scientific disciplines put the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years old...you won't have none of that...so you look to prise open and magnify even the slightest statistical anomaly in the science of carbon dating to essentially demonize the very science itself.

Slightest statistical anomaly? You haven't really done much research on radiocarbon dating methods and their accuracy have you? Putting that aside for now (I'm sure you will), can you provide any discussion of relevance to the three assumptions used for radiometric dating (of which carbon dating is only one method) other than just to repeat your statement that I reject science blah blah blah?

On assumptions - can you expand on your claim that peer review ensures that everything is questioned? What do you mean by "everyone accepts the assumptions argument and its place in most scientific endeavour"?

[spitfire]

Young Earth creationists on carbon dating

Radiometric dating, of course, poses a huge problem for people who believe that the universe is 6000-odd years old. A favorite tactic of Young-Earthers is to cite studies which show trace amounts of 14C in coal or diamond samples, which - being millions of years old - should have no original atmospheric 14C left. Recent studies, however, show that 14C can be created underground. The decay of uranium and thorium, among other isotopes, produces radiation which can create 14C from 12C. Indeed, this results from a unique decay mode known as "cluster decay" where a given isotope emits a particle heavier than an alpha particle (radium-226 is an example.)
This fact is extremely inconvenient and is therefore usually omitted in creationist literature.

Another claim is that the inconsistency of 14C levels in the atmosphere over the past 60,000 years creates a validity issue. However, calibration of carbon levels using tree rings and other sources keep these effects to an extremely small level.

“Carbon dating, like other radiometric dating methods, requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved. These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.”

—Conservapedia

Furthermore, if a sample has been contaminated, scientists will know about it.
Ironically, given how supposedly useless carbon dating is claimed to be, Creation Ministries International rests part of their "101 Evidences" on carbon dating being a useful method for within several thousand years. This of course contradicts claims that the Great Flood messed up how carbon was deposited, destroying their own argument. Less astute creationists often conflate carbon dating with other forms of radiometric dating, attempting to "disprove" the true age of dinosaur fossils by "refuting" carbon dating. This is meaningless because dinosaur fossils are not dated using carbon dating; dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago, and carbon dating only works for objects less than 50~60,000 years old.

[Risto the Great]

My answer was as good as any answer you have ever provided me with. By your own standards that should be sufficient. If you try answering something for me for once, I might consider going into more detail like I usually do. But until then, I'll just give what I'm given.

I contend you are partly useful.

[Vangelovski]

I contend you are partly useful.

Again, those claiming to disapprove of attacking the person and to be perfect themselves should lead by example.

[Vangelovski]

Young Earth creationists on carbon dating

Radiometric dating, of course, poses a huge problem for people who believe that the universe is 6000-odd years old. A favorite tactic of Young-Earthers is to cite studies which show trace amounts of 14C in coal or diamond samples, which - being millions of years old - should have no original atmospheric 14C left. Recent studies, however, show that 14C can be created underground. The decay of uranium and thorium, among other isotopes, produces radiation which can create 14C from 12C. Indeed, this results from a unique decay mode known as "cluster decay" where a given isotope emits a particle heavier than an alpha particle (radium-226 is an example.)
This fact is extremely inconvenient and is therefore usually omitted in creationist literature.

Another claim is that the inconsistency of 14C levels in the atmosphere over the past 60,000 years creates a validity issue. However, calibration of carbon levels using tree rings and other sources keep these effects to an extremely small level.

“Carbon dating, like other radiometric dating methods, requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved. These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.”

—Conservapedia

Furthermore, if a sample has been contaminated, scientists will know about it.
Ironically, given how supposedly useless carbon dating is claimed to be, Creation Ministries International rests part of their "101 Evidences" on carbon dating being a useful method for within several thousand years. This of course contradicts claims that the Great Flood messed up how carbon was deposited, destroying their own argument. Less astute creationists often conflate carbon dating with other forms of radiometric dating, attempting to "disprove" the true age of dinosaur fossils by "refuting" carbon dating. This is meaningless because dinosaur fossils are not dated using carbon dating; dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago, and carbon dating only works for objects less than 50~60,000 years old.

Seeing as the only thing you partially tried to respond to was Carbon 14 with the tree rings example, I'll just respond to that:

Bristlecone pines are the oldest living things on the earth. Native to the mountains of California and Nevada, the oldest tree has been dated at 4,600 years old. By correlating the rings with dead wood found near the trees and beams from local buildings, a chronology of 11,300 rings has been suggested. However, this does not necessarily correlate to years because multiple rings can grow in one year.

(I can copy/paste too).

Calibrating Carbon 14 levels to tree rings is yet another problematic practice with readiometric dating systems and Carbon 14 dating particularly. Thanks for pointing that out.

[spitfire]

Seeing as the only thing you partially tried to respond to was Carbon 14 with the tree rings example, I'll just respond to that:
(I can copy/paste too).

Calibrating Carbon 14 levels to tree rings is yet another problematic practice with readiometric dating systems and Carbon 14 dating particularly. Thanks for pointing that out.

What's the matter? Run out of witches? I thought I was boring you.

You can copy paste all you want, unfortunately that's just one of the many explanations you are trying to attack (don't be delusional, you can't attack it).

You will avoid the rest of the answers of course.

How's evangelical protestantism and creationism work for you Vangelovski? Is it worth it?