Intelligent Design: Viable Theory or Religious Rewording?

• FatHobbit

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  majorspark wrote:

  ManO'War wrote: Humans dig up fossels from deep underground, therefore he had to plant them there to begin with, or else the earth is older than 6,000 years old.

  Not all who believe in the Bible subscribe to the age of the earth being less than 6,000 yrs. Though the bible dates human history on this earth, there are passages in the Bible that make it clear to me that the existance of the earth predates human beings. So before you broad brush everyone who believes the bible keep this in mind.

  Yeah it predates it according to the bible by exactly 5 days. Earth was made on day one and man was made on day six.

  How long were Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden?
• FatHobbit

  

  ManO'War wrote: Jmog, how come you are the ONLY one that knows the carbon dating is a farce???
  
  Like I said in the past, you should then get your own show and debunk all of these "experts", then you will win a Noble Prize and be wealthy.

  Carbon dating is only good for ~50,000 years or less
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
• jmog

  ManO'War wrote: Jmog, how come you are the ONLY one that knows the carbon dating is a farce???
  
  Like I said in the past, you should then get your own show and debunk all of these "experts", then you will win a Noble Prize and be wealthy.

  I'm not the only one, there are MANY scientists that know C14 dating is a farce for anything older than about 50k years. There is a reason they stopped using it and started using other radiometric dating techniques.
  
  The problem is, they will never admit they were wrong and just say they "are now using more updated/scientifically advanced" dating techniques when in reality the math/science is the same.
  
  I'm not going to spell it out for you again and explain how to use google so you can look up the many scientists who have questions/concerns with radiometric dating. (See, I can be pompous too).
• ManO'War

  

  There are many different methods that are used to date the age of the universe.
• jmog

  FatHobbit wrote:

  ManO'War wrote: Jmog, how come you are the ONLY one that knows the carbon dating is a farce???
  
  Like I said in the past, you should then get your own show and debunk all of these "experts", then you will win a Noble Prize and be wealthy.

  Carbon dating is only good for ~50,000 years or less
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

  Yes, unfortunately the general public doesn't understand this, and the scientists know they don't understand this.
  
  So, you still see C14 dated fossils with "millions" of years as the date and they publish it as fact.
  
  Man O'War just likes to believe everything he's told instead of looking it up/researching it for himself.
• ManO'War

  

  Jmog, I seriously want your opinion on the Valintine car on the other forum.
• jmog

  ManO'War wrote: There are many different methods that are used to date the age of the universe.

  And I've already discussed those as well.
  
  You see, they started using other radiometric dating techniques once they found out C14 dating sucked for "old" stuff.
  
  Read up on the main one they like now, Uranium-Lead, I stated some problems with it in a post far up, but until those problems become well known like the problems with C14 are becoming, they will continue to post U-Pb dating numbers as facts too.
  
  I do love though, that you said "how come jmog is the only one that knows C14 is a farce", then when fathobbit posts a link that agrees with what I've said you quickly switch to "well, there are other dating techniques..."
  
  How quickly you change your tune.
• analogkid

  Jmog,
  It appears that you and I have slightly different views on what a theory is. My view of a theory focus on the explanation of a wide range observations and well supported hypothesis. The law lacks this explanatory component. Thanks for cuing me in on the name Mikhail Lomonosov. It appears I was too focused on Lavoisier. It just goes to show what a community effort science really is. I view Lomonosov's work as somewhere on the hypothesis continuum. As a theory it is just too narrow and lacks in the explanation component. Your thoughts?
• ManO'War

  

  jmog wrote:

  ManO'War wrote: There are many different methods that are used to date the age of the universe.

  And I've already discussed those as well.
  
  You see, they started using other radiometric dating techniques once they found out C14 dating sucked for "old" stuff.
  
  Read up on the main one they like now, Uranium-Lead, I stated some problems with it in a post far up, but until those problems become well known like the problems with C14 are becoming, they will continue to post U-Pb dating numbers as facts too.
  
  I do love though, that you said "how come jmog is the only one that knows C14 is a farce", then when fathobbit posts a link that agrees with what I've said you quickly switch to "well, there are other dating techniques..."
  
  How quickly you change your tune.

  I will take the accumulation of many different techniques over the bible anyday. It's stupid to even argue about, but I like to be entertained.
  
  
• jmog

  ManO'War wrote:
  
  I will take the accumulation of many different techniques over the bible anyday. It's stupid to even argue about, but I like to be entertained.
  
  

  1. I haven't used the Bible as a "dating technique" 1 time on this thread. I have discussed problems with radiometric dating techniques and how they spit out false/bad numbers.
  
  2. You're happy to accept bad information as fact as long as its said by a scientist? Maybe my scientific training that involves the thought process of "question everything" makes me different, but I don't just accept what others say as fact without looking into it myself.
  
  3. You are wiling to accept "accumulated" dates over but when the dates are done with 2 or 3 bad techniques and when those numbers are so far different from each other, then the scientist just picks the one that fits his/her idea of how old the rock/fossil is...yeah, that's what I would want to accept as "fact". I will tell you this, that is exactly how it is done, they might use 2 or 3 or more radiometric techniques and then pick the one that gives them the answer they want. The different techniques' answers never really agree.
• ManO'War

  

  The age of the Sun (the solar system), the Earth, and the Universe are pretty commonly accepted. If you know something that the rest of the combined efforts of scientific history have determined, then it is your duty as a scientist to publish a paper with your ideas to debunk it all. Until then, I'm going with them.
• jmog

  ManO'War wrote: The age of the Sun (the solar system), the Earth, and the Universe are pretty commonly accepted. If you know something that the rest of the combined efforts of scientific history have determined, then it is your duty as a scientist to publish a paper with your ideas to debunk it all. Until then, I'm going with them.

  Care to explain what techniques they use to age the "Sun, Earth, and the Universe"?
  
  If you are talking the Earth we just had this conversation.
  
  If we are talking Sun/Universe they, in a simplified explanation, use equations of motion techniques and temperature cooling calculations.
  
  I'd love to have that conversation as well, but describing how those same equations can be used to show a billion year old universe and a young universe is a little more in depth and would require much more time.
  
  I've given seminars on it however.
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  majorspark wrote:

  ManO'War wrote: Humans dig up fossels from deep underground, therefore he had to plant them there to begin with, or else the earth is older than 6,000 years old.

  Not all who believe in the Bible subscribe to the age of the earth being less than 6,000 yrs. Though the bible dates human history on this earth, there are passages in the Bible that make it clear to me that the existance of the earth predates human beings. So before you broad brush everyone who believes the bible keep this in mind.

  Yeah it predates it according to the bible by exactly 5 days. Earth was made on day one and man was made on day six.

  I am sure you are aware of the story of Lucifer in the Bible. God's chosen angel to lead his creation in worship. Reflecting God's glory through out his creation. I believe the Bible states that Lucifer disseminated that power from earth in the garden of Eden (Ezekial 28:13). Of course the story goes on to say Lucifer rebelled against God because he became prideful in his powerful position. At this point the earth was cast into darkness. This would have happend in the time from the beginning in Genisis 1:1 and the recreation in Genisis 1:2.
• jmog

  analogkid wrote: Jmog,
  It appears that you and I have slightly different views on what a theory is. My view of a theory focus on the explanation of a wide range observations and well supported hypothesis. The law lacks this explanatory component. Thanks for cuing me in on the name Mikhail Lomonosov. It appears I was too focused on Lavoisier. It just goes to show what a community effort science really is. I view Lomonosov's work as somewhere on the hypothesis continuum. As a theory it is just too narrow and lacks in the explanation component. Your thoughts?

  A theory is a "well tested" hypothesis as you say, but there are many theories that have eventually became laws when the theory was tested exhaustively and proven to be true, not just accepted to be true.
  
  Not all scientific laws are just plain equations. Kepler's Laws of planetary motion for example. Thermodynamic laws are statements/ideas that eventually people have added equations to.
  
  There are laws that also eventually have been known to have "holes" in them so they may revert back to a theory.
  
  Newton's Law of Gravity was once thought to be a law that had zero cases where it was false. Then Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity that explained the areas that Newton's gravitational law didn't make sense.
  
  Now, Newton's law is still a "law" for macroscale objects, but overall his "law" is combined with relativity to create the overal gravitational theory.
  
  So in essense Newton's Law was "changed" back to a theory (kind of).
  
  Many theories/principles are described with equations, that doesn't mean they are 100% correct. If they were generally accepted as 100% correct then they would probably be a Law.
  
  With regards to Mikhail Lomonosov vs Lavoisier as Lomonosov developed the original theory and Lavoisier did the exhaustive testing to prove the theory that eventually became the law of conservation of mass.
• jmog

  majorspark wrote:
  I am sure you are aware of the story of Lucifer in the Bible. God's chosen angel to lead his creation in worship. Reflecting God's glory through out his creation. I believe the Bible states that Lucifer disseminated that power from earth in the garden of Eden (Ezekial 28:13). Of course the story goes on to say Lucifer rebelled against God because he became prideful in his powerful position. At this point the earth was cast into darkness. This would have happend in the time from the beginning in Genisis 1:1 and the recreation in Genisis 1:2.

  That is a very valid Biblical theory and I'm torn at times between that one and the idea that Lucifer "fell" between "day 1" and whenver he tempted Eve (wasn't necessarily on day 6).
  
  FYI, the temptation of Eve (heck, even the creation of Eve) in a Biblical sense could have happened years or even decades after the creation of Adam.
  
  If the Lucifer "fell" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 idea is true, then it does open a window for an Earth that is older than the 6000 years of "human history" the Bible is pretty clear about.
• Bigred1995

  

  jmog wrote: 1. I haven't used the Bible as a "dating technique" 1 time on this thread. I have discussed problems with radiometric dating techniques and how they spit out false/bad numbers.

  Yes, but anyone that remembers anything from the "other" forum remembers that you believe the Bible to be infallible and to be 100% accurate. You believe the that humans once lived to be several hundred years old and that the the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, based solely on the Bible.

  jmog wrote: 2. You're happy to accept bad information as fact as long as its said by a scientist? Maybe my scientific training that involves the thought process of "question everything" makes me different, but I don't just accept what others say as fact without looking into it myself.

  Science is about questioning everything, but not about rejecting everything; it's about taking the best available data and making the best possible decisions based on that data. The thing is, you reject all of that Science has to offer because of the "flaws" but whole heartily accept the ridiculous claims of 2000+ year old text. You may have the education of a scientist, but you are no scientist!
  

  jmog wrote: 3. You are wiling to accept "accumulated" dates over but when the dates are done with 2 or 3 bad techniques and when those numbers are so far different from each other, then the scientist just picks the one that fits his/her idea of how old the rock/fossil is...yeah, that's what I would want to accept as "fact". I will tell you this, that is exactly how it is done, they might use 2 or 3 or more radiometric techniques and then pick the one that gives them the answer they want. The different techniques' answers never really agree.

• jmog

  Bigred1995 wrote:
  Yes, but anyone that remembers anything from the "other" forum remembers that you believe the Bible to be infallible and to be 100% accurate. You believe the that humans once lived to be several hundred years old and that the the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, based solely on the Bible.
  
  
  Science is about questioning everything, but not about rejecting everything; it's about taking the best available data and making the best possible decisions based on that data. The thing is, you reject all of that Science has to offer because of the "flaws" but whole heartily accept the ridiculous claims of 2000+ year old text. You may have the education of a scientist, but you are no scientist!

  1. I do believe the Bible is 100% correct, but I stop you at that. My believe in a young Earth is NOT based solely on the Bible and never has been. Matter of fact at one point in my scientific career I believed everything they tell us about the age of the universe it wasn't until I started to question it and research it myself that I saw the possibility of a young Earth SCIENTIFICALLY. It just happened to fit with one Biblical theory of the age of the Earth. I've done researh that includes anything from ocean salt concentrations to planetary motions to radiometric dating techniques to plate tectonics to backup my thoughts (as has many other scientists, not just me). I do not use anything in the Bible to describe the age of the Earth, period.
  
  2. Where did I say I reject everything? If you don't understand that this topic of the age of the Earth is such a small percentage of science then you are uninformed. I don't reject the possibility of the universe being billions of years old, I reject the idea that it is fact. There is a huge difference there.
  
  The multiple scientific journals that have published my few papers might disagree with your assertation that I'm not a scientist. In your logic every scientist who doesn't accept that "status quo" of science at that time isn't a scientist at all.
  
  In your logic then Galileo, Einstein, etc were not scientists. Galileo rejected the idea that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Einstein rejected classical physics nearly as a whole with his theory of relativity. So I guess since these guys rejected the scientific theory that was accepted as true during their days, they weren't scientists?
  
  You apparently failed both science class and logic class .
• analogkid

  jmog wrote:

  analogkid wrote: Jmog,
  It appears that you and I have slightly different views on what a theory is. My view of a theory focus on the explanation of a wide range observations and well supported hypothesis. The law lacks this explanatory component. Thanks for cuing me in on the name Mikhail Lomonosov. It appears I was too focused on Lavoisier. It just goes to show what a community effort science really is. I view Lomonosov's work as somewhere on the hypothesis continuum. As a theory it is just too narrow and lacks in the explanation component. Your thoughts?

  A theory is a "well tested" hypothesis as you say, but there are many theories that have eventually became laws when the theory was tested exhaustively and proven to be true, not just accepted to be true.
  
  Not all scientific laws are just plain equations. Kepler's Laws of planetary motion for example. Thermodynamic laws are statements/ideas that eventually people have added equations to.
  
  There are laws that also eventually have been known to have "holes" in them so they may revert back to a theory.
  
  Newton's Law of Gravity was once thought to be a law that had zero cases where it was false. Then Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity that explained the areas that Newton's gravitational law didn't make sense.
  
  Now, Newton's law is still a "law" for macroscale objects, but overall his "law" is combined with relativity to create the overal gravitational theory.
  
  So in essense Newton's Law was "changed" back to a theory (kind of).
  
  Many theories/principles are described with equations, that doesn't mean they are 100% correct. If they were generally accepted as 100% correct then they would probably be a Law.
  
  With regards to Mikhail Lomonosov vs Lavoisier as Lomonosov developed the original theory and Lavoisier did the exhaustive testing to prove the theory that eventually became the law of conservation of mass.

  Jmog,
  I would certainly agree with you not all laws are expressed as equations (I don't believe I said that they were) and that theories and principle can be expressed as equations. What is your view on how a scientific principle fits into the framework?
  
  I still do not view Lomonosov's work as a theory as it explained nothing but merely described the results of several experiments. The Atomic Theory on the the other hand does a nifty job of explaining why the laws of conservation of mass, definite proportions and multiple proportions actually work. Today we are supremely confident that atoms truly exist yet this is not called the atomic law. Why is that?
  
  I also do not think that Newton's Law of Gravitation is any less of a law as long as you understand its limitations. Even the law of conservation of mass has to have an asterisk next to it explaining how energy affects the law but it is not now called the Theory of Conservation of Mass. It simply has limitations to when it can be applied. I wonder if that true of every law? At any rate the Theory of General Relativity gives an explanation as to why the law of gravity works as it does.
  
  Do you have any references of a theory becoming a law or visa versa? I would like to read up on them. It has been nice chatting with you.
• Bigred1995

  

  jmog wrote: 1. I do believe the Bible is 100% correct, but I stop you at that. My believe in a young Earth is NOT based solely on the Bible and never has been. Matter of fact at one point in my scientific career I believed everything they tell us about the age of the universe it wasn't until I started to question it and research it myself that I saw the possibility of a young Earth SCIENTIFICALLY. It just happened to fit with one Biblical theory of the age of the Earth. I've done researh that includes anything from ocean salt concentrations to planetary motions to radiometric dating techniques to plate tectonics to backup my thoughts (as has many other scientists, not just me). I do not use anything in the Bible to describe the age of the Earth, period.
  
  2. Where did I say I reject everything? If you don't understand that this topic of the age of the Earth is such a small percentage of science then you are uninformed. I don't reject the possibility of the universe being billions of years old, I reject the idea that it is fact. There is a huge difference there.

  I do understand that the age of the Earth is a very small percentage of all Science, I just have a hard time believing, based on what you've shown me on this topic that you have a hard time accepting anything unless it's "divinely inspired" and 100% infallible.
  The uses of the word "facts" in terms of science really irritates me. One thing I do remember from science class is that there are no "facts" in science. The 4.5 Billion figure is a widely accepted number based on the the best data that we currently have. Most educated people will state that the Earth is aproximately 4.5 billion years old, or similarly.
  

  jmog wrote: The multiple scientific journals that have published my few papers might disagree with your assertation that I'm not a scientist. In your logic every scientist who doesn't accept that "status quo" of science at that time isn't a scientist at all.
  
  In your logic then Galileo, Einstein, etc were not scientists. Galileo rejected the idea that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Einstein rejected classical physics nearly as a whole with his theory of relativity. So I guess since these guys rejected the scientific theory that was accepted as true during their days, they weren't scientists?
  
  You apparently failed both science class and logic class .

  I'd very much like to see the papers you've had published; not that I don't believe you, you've already proven on this and the other site that you're very knowlegeable in your field, but I'd like to see what work you've had published and how your peers review that work. You can send me a link in PM, or if you'd prefer email I can PM my email address. If you're concerned about me divulging your info, I can only promise I'd do no such thing!
  I didn't suggest you weren't a scientist because you simply reject the "status quo", but because you never provide any scientific data to back up why you believe what you believe. All you have ever done whenever someone brought up why the believe the Earth is a certain age, or a piece of dinosaur bone is this age, you simply say something like, "there are many bad assumptions and holes in the dating techniques that scientists have used to say the Earth is billions of years old.", but you never provide any scientific reasoning as to why the Earth is far younger than what is accepted.
  
  Those scientist didn't simply poke holes in the arguments of the widely accepted views and tell them they were wrong. They pointed out the errors and then provided data of their own, which in turn was scrutinized by the scientific community before they became the "status quo"
  
  I also find it highly ironic that you'd bring up Galileo in this conversation, because he not only went against the status quo but also the church; the same church that reduced a great man, a great Scientist to saying this:

  ... do swear that I have always believed, and do now believe, and with God's help will in the future believe all that is held and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas, after an injunction which had been lawfully intimated to me by this Holy Office that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and is immovable, and that the Earth is not the center of the world and moves, and that I must not hold, defend or teach in any way whatsoever, either verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Scripture,...

  Oh, I did quite well in both my science & logic classes!
  
  Also, I have a feeling that most of what you believe is based on the "science" found in the following link. I just found this site a few days ago and have decided, that as personal side project, to investigate each one and find out as much as I can on each. I guess the worst thing that can possibly come from it is that I learn something, and that ain't all that bad now is it?
  
  http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
• jmog

  analogkid wrote:
  
  
  
  Jmog,
  I would certainly agree with you not all laws are expressed as equations (I don't believe I said that they were) and that theories and principle can be expressed as equations. What is your view on how a scientific principle fits into the framework?
  
  I still do not view Lomonosov's work as a theory as it explained nothing but merely described the results of several experiments. The Atomic Theory on the the other hand does a nifty job of explaining why the laws of conservation of mass, definite proportions and multiple proportions actually work. Today we are supremely confident that atoms truly exist yet this is not called the atomic law. Why is that?

  Atomic theory is not called a law because to this day we do not fully undertand exactly what they look like on the subatomic level. We are not even close to knowing everything about how the atom works, there are many ideas and those combined determine the modern day atomic theory which to be honest has changed dozens of times, maybe 100s of times over the years. We do not even close to know "everything" about an atom.
• jmog

  Bigred1995 wrote:
  I do understand that the age of the Earth is a very small percentage of all Science, I just have a hard time believing, based on what you've shown me on this topic that you have a hard time accepting anything unless it's "divinely inspired" and 100% infallible.
  The uses of the word "facts" in terms of science really irritates me. One thing I do remember from science class is that there are no "facts" in science. The 4.5 Billion figure is a widely accepted number based on the the best data that we currently have. Most educated people will state that the Earth is aproximately 4.5 billion years old, or similarly.

  I never said that "most" physicists would state a young Earth. I am fully aware that those physicists that believe in a young Earth are in the minority. I've never said I know for sure I am 100% right and they are wrong.
  

  I'd very much like to see the papers you've had published; not that I don't believe you, you've already proven on this and the other site that you're very knowlegeable in your field, but I'd like to see what work you've had published and how your peers review that work. You can send me a link in PM, or if you'd prefer email I can PM my email address. If you're concerned about me divulging your info, I can only promise I'd do no such thing!
  I didn't suggest you weren't a scientist because you simply reject the "status quo", but because you never provide any scientific data to back up why you believe what you believe. All you have ever done whenever someone brought up why the believe the Earth is a certain age, or a piece of dinosaur bone is this age, you simply say something like, "there are many bad assumptions and holes in the dating techniques that scientists have used to say the Earth is billions of years old.", but you never provide any scientific reasoning as to why the Earth is far younger than what is accepted.
  
  Those scientist didn't simply poke holes in the arguments of the widely accepted views and tell them they were wrong. They pointed out the errors and then provided data of their own, which in turn was scrutinized by the scientific community before they became the "status quo"
  

  1. I will post one of my papers on here, a couple others are NASA/NSA papers that aren't published online for their sensitivity, but the one I had published in the Journal of Crystal Growth I can post a link.
  
  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJ6-4H9GRSW-3&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1264024786&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c918f785845055df110669bef231c5ae
  
  There's a link to at least the abstract as you have to purchase it. If you are truly interested I can send a PDF copy of the whole thing as I have one on my PC.
  
  I can't post the ones I worked on for NSA and NASA or even the few studies I got published for my previous employer as they hold trade secrets (in the version I have now).
  
  2. I have stated exact scientific reasons why I don't believe most radiometric dating numbers/results. It wasn't opinion, they were backed by the science. If you care to read back at my posts I state them exactly. I gave the data and reason for C14, I gave the data and reason for U-Pb, go back and read .
  

  
  Also, I have a feeling that most of what you believe is based on the "science" found in the following link. I just found this site a few days ago and have decided, that as personal side project, to investigate each one and find out as much as I can on each. I guess the worst thing that can possibly come from it is that I learn something, and that ain't all that bad now is it?
  
  http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

  I'll have to check out that link when I get home from work, never seen it before. My work's firewall blocks religious sites so I can't check it out now .
• Bigred1995

  

  jmog wrote: I never said that "most" physicists would state a young Earth. I am fully aware that those physicists that believe in a young Earth are in the minority. I've never said I know for sure I am 100% right and they are wrong.

  I never said nor implied that you said "most" physicists would state a young Earth. I'm not even sure where you got that to even quote most!

  jmog wrote: 1. I will post one of my papers on here, a couple others are NASA/NSA papers that aren't published online for their sensitivity, but the one I had published in the Journal of Crystal Growth I can post a link.
  
  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJ6-4H9GRSW-3&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1264024786&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c918f785845055df110669bef231c5ae
  
  There's a link to at least the abstract as you have to purchase it. If you are truly interested I can send a PDF copy of the whole thing as I have one on my PC.
  
  I can't post the ones I worked on for NSA and NASA or even the few studies I got published for my previous employer as they hold trade secrets (in the version I have now).

  Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at it later and if it's not to far over my head (I'm sure it will be) I may ask to see the entire document, but if I do I'll send you a PM with my email address. No worries about the NSA/NASA, the las thing I want is some federal agent knocking at my door.

  jmog wrote: 2. I have stated exact scientific reasons why I don't believe most radiometric dating numbers/results. It wasn't opinion, they were backed by the science. If you care to read back at my posts I state them exactly. I gave the data and reason for C14, I gave the data and reason for U-Pb, go back and read .
  
  I'll have to check out that link when I get home from work, never seen it before. My work's firewall blocks religious sites so I can't check it out now .

  That is my point. No one is debating that there are flaws in the data; my point was that you never post any scientific data supporting your view as to why the age of the Earth isn't about 4.5 billions years old. For instance, instead of saying the, "Earth isn't about 4.5 billion years old because, C14 is only good for 50,000 years or radiometric techniques assume this and this!", try something like this, "The Earth isn't close to being 4.5 billion years because (insert your scientific findings that don't just poke holes in other scientific work)." So in other words tell us how to properly age the earth!
• analogkid

  jmog wrote: Atomic theory is not called a law because to this day we do not fully undertand exactly what they look like on the subatomic level. We are not even close to knowing everything about how the atom works, there are many ideas and those combined determine the modern day atomic theory which to be honest has changed dozens of times, maybe 100s of times over the years. We do not even close to know "everything" about an atom.

  Jmog,
  True, we have a ways to go with the atom and the atomic theory has changed (grown if you will) as new information has been discovered. Some assumptions inherent to it have been falsified but new assumptions have been built in yet at its core it still states that matter is made from small particle called atoms, compounds are made from whole number ratios of atoms of specific elements, chemical reactions take existing atoms and rearrange them. As near as I can tell this is universally accepted, yet they are not laws. Also universally accepted is the idea that atoms contain protons and neutrons in a tiny nucleus (about 1/10000) the volume of the atom. This radical idea explained observations in a lab about particles that we can not hope to 'see' if quantum theory is to be believed. Why not make that composition into a law; the law of atom composition: atoms are made from protons, neutrons and electrons? What about quantum theory? Arguably, the most important theory of the last century that makes bizarre predictions that more often than not turn out to actually happen in the laboratory.
  
  These theories are not statements of fact. They are our best explanations about how the world around us operates. They are complex ideas that cover observations from many interconnected experiments across many disciplines. They can be falsified but will never be complete because new information will continuously change the details.
  
  Laws are far more narrow in their scope (generally a statement or 2 or perhaps an equation) although they apply in a wide range of circumstance. There is no attempt to explain the law makes sense, it simply happens. I can tell you what the what the law of conservation of mass is in a sentence. I can explain the atomic theory to you in a book and that book will include conservation of mass.
  
  We can argue the semantics about things that fall short of laws and theories. Shall we call them hypotheses, principles, postulates, conjectures? I don't know but I am pretty certain that Lomonosov's view of conservation of mass was not a theory. It does not have the scope of the atomic theory or any other theory for that matter. It was one of those other things or just simply the opening shot in the data that lead to the establishment of the conservation of mass as a law of nature. I think the later is most likely.
  
  The differences in the use of the terms hypothesis, theory and law in science and in the lay public is a big area of concern. It cause misunderstanding and mistrust. Scientists do not help themselves in this area. We are far too lose in our use of these terms ourselves. Should highly speculative areas such as String Theory be a theory since it is not falsifiable at this point (among other reasons)? Are Mendel's Law's of Segregation truly laws since their use is so restricted? I do not have the answers but my students certainly have the questions.
• jmog

  analogkid,
  
  Trust me, your concerns are shared by myself. There are many theories that are short on "scope" like you say laws are, then there are laws that are large in scope in my opinion.
  
  There are postulates, principles, theorems, etc and you are correct that we don't do a good job in the science world of clearly stating the differences.
• jmog

  Bigred1995 wrote:

  jmog wrote: 2. I have stated exact scientific reasons why I don't believe most radiometric dating numbers/results. It wasn't opinion, they were backed by the science. If you care to read back at my posts I state them exactly. I gave the data and reason for C14, I gave the data and reason for U-Pb, go back and read .
  
  I'll have to check out that link when I get home from work, never seen it before. My work's firewall blocks religious sites so I can't check it out now .

  That is my point. No one is debating that there are flaws in the data; my point was that you never post any scientific data supporting your view as to why the age of the Earth isn't about 4.5 billions years old. For instance, instead of saying the, "Earth isn't about 4.5 billion years old because, C14 is only good for 50,000 years or radiometric techniques assume this and this!", try something like this, "The Earth isn't close to being 4.5 billion years because (insert your scientific findings that don't just poke holes in other scientific work)." So in other words tell us how to properly age the earth!

  I did exactly this with U-Pb, I stated that when taking into consideration the "halos" burned into the crystal structure from the release of alpha particles, it is more consistent with Polonium decay to lead and not uranium. If you consider this data set with Polonium decay to Pb, then the rocks suddenly date to less than 10,000 years old instead of 4.5 billion.
  
  The geologists know about these alpha particle/halo problems with U-Pb decay, and they know what the numbers for Polonium would spit out, so they then just find some other radiometric dating technique to give them the answer they want.
  
  Same thing they did when C14 dating was found to have problems, they moved to U-Pb, now that their numbers don't come out to what they want when you REALLY study the issues with U-Pb they move onto some other technique until they get what they want "age" wise.
  
  Instead of saying "well, now that electron microscopes are more powerful we have noticed some inconsistencies with U-Pb assumptions and redated these rocks to 10k years", they just have gone to a different dating technique that will give them the answer they are looking for.
  
  If you don't think scientists (some) manipulate data, then you haven't paid close attention to the Global Warming "science" .