Jump to content


Photo

The Main Reason Creation Evidence Is Never Accepted As Evidence.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
32 replies to this topic

#21 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand
  • Interests:Movies. music, science.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 16 March 2012 - 11:23 PM

Perhaps her career isn't destroyed because she makes the claim that evolution is still true despite these findings. I am sure if she was advocating creationism with this data then this would be an entirely different story. So in a sense you are allowed to find data contradictory to evolution.... You're just not allowed to use that data against it.


This seems like many other topics, one side says evidence is against evolution and other side says it is not. I don't think she believes she found data contradictory to evolution.

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2012 - 01:51 AM

This seems like many other topics, one side says evidence is against evolution and other side says it is not. I don't think she believes she found data contradictory to evolution.


..... So data that cuts the "millions of years" for evolution to occur, to about 10,000 is not contradictory to evolution?

#23 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 17 March 2012 - 04:35 AM

Perhaps her career isn't destroyed because she makes the claim that evolution is still true despite these findings. I am sure if she was advocating creationism with this data then this would be an entirely different story. So in a sense you are allowed to find data contradictory to evolution.... You're just not allowed to use that data against it.


How does wanting something carbon dated independently, not an empirical test? You are going to have to show some form of support for your claims here or retract them.
We already know what the tissue is, go research. Further DNA has been found, I am sure verification on what DNA is, is not needed.


And maybe you shouldn't make statements like that without evidence of it.

Empirical testing is based upon knowing what you are doing. So first you need to know what it is you want to be tested and whether or not that test will provide a good result.
If your theory of how soft tissue is preserved in fossils is in question, then how would you know what is being tested would provide trustworthy results? If the dating of the bone's exterior and interior provide different results, you can imagine that one of the two isn't to be trusted so even if you would date the interior to be less then 6k years, where would that leave you? You'd still have to find out what reading is the correct one. Therefor I would find it more logical to first find out what's going on, and if it is considered useful, then date the interior.

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 March 2012 - 05:31 AM



Perhaps her career isn't destroyed because she makes the claim that evolution is still true despite these findings. I am sure if she was advocating creationism with this data then this would be an entirely different story. So in a sense you are allowed to find data contradictory to evolution.... You're just not allowed to use that data against it.


How does wanting something carbon dated independently, not an empirical test? You are going to have to show some form of support for your claims here or retract them.
We already know what the tissue is, go research. Further DNA has been found, I am sure verification on what DNA is, is not needed.



And maybe you shouldn't make statements like that without evidence of it.


Good idea… This is a major problem that I point at all the time! Either provide actual, factual evidence for your assertion OR admit that it ISN’T factual, but rather mere opinion.


Empirical testing is based upon knowing what you are doing.


Absolutely TRUE! But the empirical scientific method is a baseline, simplistic logical set of steps used to validate or disprove an hypothesis, model or theory.


So first you need to know what it is you want to be tested and whether or not that test will provide a good result.



That is incorrect! I agree that you should know “what it is you want to be tested”, but you have absolutely NO idea (other than your hypothesis) what the result will be UNTIL you’ve done the testing! Only the RESULTS of the experimentation will provide the results (good or bad, positive or negative, validating or invalidating).


If your theory of how soft tissue is preserved in fossils is in question, then how would you know what is being tested would provide trustworthy results?


If your hypothesis, model or theory “of how soft tissue is preserved in fossils is in question”, you test it (your hypothesis, model or theory) to see if it is valid or invalid! That’s what the testing is for! You have ABSOLUTLY no idea if “what is being tested would provide trustworthy results” UNTIL you’ve tested it!


If the dating of the bone's exterior and interior provide different results, you can imagine that one of the two isn't to be trusted so even if you would date the interior to be less then 6k years, where would that leave you?


Knowing that you have verified absolutely NOTHING! You know absolutely NOTHING concerning the actual dates of “the bone's exterior and interior”! Therefore you MUST CONTINUE in your experimentation until you DO have valid results.


You'd still have to find out what reading is the correct one.


I totally agree, because NEITHER is correct if EITHER is in question.



Therefor I would find it more logical to first find out what's going on,


I totally agree!


and if it is considered useful, then date the interior.


Incorrect! “Useful” is not what we’re looking for in the Empirical Scientific Method”. It might help, but useful in no way indicative of “FACTUAL” or “VALID”, or “Verified” or “Validated”.

Further, the “Exterior” is not superior to the “Interior” in validation (although the linguistics of the word “superior” can be applied to the exterior due to position. But that is semantically applied, not factual); BOTH are equal!

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 March 2012 - 05:37 AM



Perhaps her career isn't destroyed because she makes the claim that evolution is still true despite these findings. I am sure if she was advocating creationism with this data then this would be an entirely different story. So in a sense you are allowed to find data contradictory to evolution.... You're just not allowed to use that data against it.


This seems like many other topics, one side says evidence is against evolution and other side says it is not. I don't think she believes she found data contradictory to evolution.



The key here is the word “Believes”. It is a word based upon “Faith” and not “Fact”.

#26 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 17 March 2012 - 06:26 AM

That is incorrect! I agree that you should know “what it is you want to be tested”, but you have absolutely NO idea (other than your hypothesis) what the result will be UNTIL you’ve done the testing! Only the RESULTS of the experimentation will provide the results (good or bad, positive or negative, validating or invalidating).


I can't say I agree. In this case, carbon dating the soft tissue will provide you a result (there is no doubt about that). However that result can be completely faulty. You must first know if the test will provide a result that you can trust by meeting the requirements of the test.


If your hypothesis, model or theory “of how soft tissue is preserved in fossils is in question”, you test it (your hypothesis, model or theory) to see if it is valid or invalid! That’s what the testing is for! You have ABSOLUTLY no idea if “what is being tested would provide trustworthy results” UNTIL you’ve tested it!


Of course. Getting this theory fixed would be my primary concern.


Knowing that you have verified absolutely NOTHING! You know absolutely NOTHING concerning the actual dates of “the bone's exterior and interior”! Therefore you MUST CONTINUE in your experimentation until you DO have valid results.


But if you do not know how the tissue is preserved, dating it won't give you extra information (it'll give you a number that you won't be able to validate untill the previous theory is fixed). I don't even think we need to date it. Isn't soft tissue always considered young and thus providing you a paradox even without the dating test?

Incorrect! “Useful” is not what we’re looking for in the Empirical Scientific Method”. It might help, but useful in no way indicative of “FACTUAL” or “VALID”, or “Verified” or “Validated”.


I meant useful in the research of getting the theory fixed concerning preservation of soft tissue.


Further, the “Exterior” is not superior to the “Interior” in validation (although the linguistics of the word “superior” can be applied to the exterior due to position. But that is semantically applied, not factual); BOTH are equal!


Neither result is superior however we do need to find out if the interior, the soft tissue, can be used to date the bone. As long as all that hasn't been found out, we can draw little to no conclusions from it (except that our theory of conservation of soft tissue is probably flawed).

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2012 - 06:40 AM

And maybe you shouldn't make statements like that without evidence of it.

Empirical testing is based upon knowing what you are doing. So first you need to know what it is you want to be tested and whether or not that test will provide a good result.
If your theory of how soft tissue is preserved in fossils is in question, then how would you know what is being tested would provide trustworthy results? If the dating of the bone's exterior and interior provide different results, you can imagine that one of the two isn't to be trusted so even if you would date the interior to be less then 6k years, where would that leave you? You'd still have to find out what reading is the correct one. Therefor I would find it more logical to first find out what's going on, and if it is considered useful, then date the interior.



Saying "Perhaps" introduces a level of doubt to my statement... Hence it is needs no support as it is merely a suggestion of an idea or my own opinion as Ron stated... I never said this was absolute, (hence the perhaps).


I already know what Empirical testing equates to... I have had to educate many evolutionists on this subject. It isn't based on "knowing what you are doing" since this would mean that empirical experiment on new, unknown, ideas is not possible, (an absurd idea!). Rather empirical equates to Karl Popper's tenets of falsifiability, direct observation of the phenomena or its effects, repeatable, testable, measurable and falsifiable. A query how many of these things fits evolution? From my stance only one.....


The interior isn't dated. This is the problem, rather than doing the tests to find out what is going on, lame excuses are given instead. There is 100% empirical evidence on the rates of decay of proteins and DNA, whereas on the flip side the "evidence" of an old Earth is highly speculative due to the assumptions made in the dating process.

I'll explain this. In order to use the rate of decay of a radioactive substance you would require the initial concentration of that radioactive substance... You can measure it now and then tomorrow etc, to work out how fast it decays, but without the initial amount there is no end point to how far you extrapolate the time. Was there 10 tonne initially or was it 1 kilo? Where is the line drawn? This is a fatal flaw in the dating process that no-one seems to care about. Furthermore, it also assumes that the decay rate stays constant and that the decay rate is the same as it is now... These are also untestable assumptions... (refer to what I said about empiricalism... Is this empirical data?)

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2012 - 06:47 AM

I can't say I agree. In this case, carbon dating the soft tissue will provide you a result (there is no doubt about that). However that result can be completely faulty. You must first know if the test will provide a result that you can trust by meeting the requirements of the test.


Neither result is superior

(except that our theory of conservation of soft tissue is probably flawed).


And how do you know that the tests you do to test it are also reliable, and so on and so forth... Its an infinite regression dude.


I'd say the rate of soft tissue is superior since that is empirically demonstrable, whereas the radioactive dating is based solely on assumptions.... (as I explained before)

How do you know that, or is this your own opinion based on bias? Perhaps the world is only 10,000 years old... It would fit the population statistics of humans.

#29 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 17 March 2012 - 07:11 AM

Saying "Perhaps" introduces a level of doubt to my statement... Hence it is needs no support as it is merely a suggestion of an idea or my own opinion as Ron stated... I never said this was absolute, (hence the perhaps).


"I am sure if she was advocating creationism with this data then this would be an entirely different story."

I wasn't reacting to the 'perhaps' statement.

#30 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 17 March 2012 - 07:13 AM

And how do you know that the tests you do to test it are also reliable, and so on and so forth... Its an infinite regression dude.


I'd say the rate of soft tissue is superior since that is empirically demonstrable, whereas the radioactive dating is based solely on assumptions.... (as I explained before)

How do you know that, or is this your own opinion based on bias? Perhaps the world is only 10,000 years old... It would fit the population statistics of humans.


Give me some time to get more data on this.

#31 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 March 2012 - 07:20 AM



That is incorrect! I agree that you should know “what it is you want to be tested”, but you have absolutely NO idea (other than your hypothesis) what the result will be UNTIL you’ve done the testing! Only the RESULTS of the experimentation will provide the results (good or bad, positive or negative, validating or invalidating).



I can't say I agree. In this case, carbon dating the soft tissue will provide you a result (there is no doubt about that). However that result can be completely faulty. You must first know if the test will provide a result that you can trust by meeting the requirements of the test.



First – It doesn’t matter if you and I agree or not, facts are facts regardless.

Second – Carbon dating has its own set of problems to deal with, but that is an argument that has been debated extensively elsewhere, so I don’t want to get off topic from the context of our conversation.

Third – ALL tests provide results, this is not the conflict here. What is in conflict is that you somehow can divine the validation of an experiment prior to even starting the experiment. At best you can “hypothesize”, but that is nothing more than a guess, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with a fact.




If your hypothesis, model or theory “of how soft tissue is preserved in fossils is in question”, you test it (your hypothesis, model or theory) to see if it is valid or invalid! That’s what the testing is for! You have ABSOLUTLY no idea if “what is being tested would provide trustworthy results” UNTIL you’ve tested it!



Of course. Getting this theory fixed would be my primary concern.




Knowing that you have verified absolutely NOTHING! You know absolutely NOTHING concerning the actual dates of “the bone's exterior and interior”! Therefore you MUST CONTINUE in your experimentation until you DO have valid results.



But if you do not know how the tissue is preserved, dating it won't give you extra information (it'll give you a number that you won't be able to validate untill the previous theory is fixed). I don't even think we need to date it. Isn't soft tissue always considered young and thus providing you a paradox even without the dating test?



First – You are proceeding upon the assumption that your “Carbon dating” technique in infallible. And, unless it is infallible, you are not going forward in attempt to actually validate anything. Your hypothesis is biased and has no chance of factual validity, and your “previous theory” will never be “fixed”. Further, a “theory” is not a “fact”, therefore the word “fixed” is a misnomer when used in conjunction with it, as within this context, fixed defined means “not subject to change in amount or time”, and “immovable or securely in position”. And that, is in no way descriptive of “theory” (although evolutionists like to think it does, and therein lies another great paradox).

Second – Your initial intent on insisting that you can know for a fact that you have the outcome of an experiment PRIOR to performing said experiment, is the actual paradox.

Third – I, at no time, claimed that soft tissue automatically meant “young”. But I must remind you of this fact: what do we have actual empirical scientific evidence for; that soft tissue is young, or that soft tissue is ancient? The preponderance of the evidence adduced thus far points directly to young, as opposed to ancient! Unless, of course, you can provide empirical scientific evidence that soft tissue has been inductively proven to be ancient.



Knowing that you have verified Incorrect! “Useful” is not what we’re looking for in the Empirical Scientific Method”. It might help, but useful in no way indicative of “FACTUAL” or “VALID”, or “Verified” or “Validated”.


I meant useful in the research of getting the theory fixed concerning preservation of soft tissue.



Once again, “fixed” and “theory” are not correlatives. AND where is ANY empirical scientific evidence that soft tissue can be preserved over millions of years, let alone hundreds of thousands?

Further, ALL research is “useful”, regardless of whether it validates evidence, or invalidated hypotheses, models or theories.



Further, the “Exterior” is not superior to the “Interior” in validation (although the linguistics of the word “superior” can be applied to the exterior due to position. But that is semantically applied, not factual); BOTH are equal!



Neither result is superior however we do need to find out if the interior, the soft tissue, can be used to date the bone. As long as all that hasn't been found out, we can draw little to no conclusions from it (except that our theory of conservation of soft tissue is probably flawed).



All of which are mere opinions, and nothing more…

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2012 - 08:00 AM

"I am sure if she was advocating creationism with this data then this would be an entirely different story."

I wasn't reacting to the 'perhaps' statement.


Again... "I am sure" is indicative of an opinion... not a statement of absolute.

#33 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 March 2012 - 09:07 AM





"I am sure if she was advocating creationism with this data then this would be an entirely different story."

I wasn't reacting to the 'perhaps' statement.



Again... "I am sure" is indicative of an opinion... not a statement of absolute.



I totally agree!

Further, mere opinion means absolutely nothing to me when the attempt is to promulgate it as fact. Opinions are fine in the context of discussion of ideas, but in the context of scientific fact, it is on the level of a guess, and nothing more.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users