If you don't believe the scientific findings, just ignore them

[TarHeelEer]

They didn't look at the data to determine what was wrong, they arbitrarily threw out the results, because it didn't meet their pattern of lie.... errrr, science.

By the way, this specimen that was c-14 dated was part of the T-Rex collagen find about 10 years ago. You know, where soft tissue existed in a T-Rex fossil that shouldn't have been there either if it were millions of years old. They now explain this that iron preserved the soft tissue. *snicker*

Layer upon layer of bologna smattered with spam. None of science's supposed historical findings can be tested using scientific method, so let's just make up stuff as we go.

 

[op2]

They didn't look at the data to determine what was wrong, they arbitrarily threw out the results, because it didn't meet their pattern of lie.... errrr, science.

By the way, this specimen that was c-14 dated was part of the T-Rex collagen find about 10 years ago. You know, where soft tissue existed in a T-Rex fossil that shouldn't have been there either if it were millions of years old. They now explain this that iron preserved the soft tissue. *snicker*

Layer upon layer of bologna smattered with spam. None of science's supposed historical findings can be tested using scientific method, so let's just make up stuff as we go.

The more firmly something is established the more unlikely a report that varies from it is likely to be true. It's firmly established that dinosaurs died out 75,000,000 years ago, or thereabouts. Any single report of them being around 50,000 years ago is going to be assumed to be in error. It doesn't mean that it is absolutely, totally impossible that a dinosaur was around 50,000, but just that it's so unlikely that you'd need extremely convincing evidence for it. If you can muster up the evidence then proceed to Stockholm and collect your Nobel.

If someone reports that the Sun is 93,000 miles from Earth people don't say "Wow, all those reports of 93,000,000 miles were way off." Instead they say "Clearly, the 93,000 was the mistake."

BTW, THE, do you apply the standard you seem to want to apply to global warming, evolution, etc, to every other aspect of science too? Or is it only these few that clash with your religious and political outlook?

 

[TarHeelEer]

The more firmly something is established the more unlikely a report that varies from it is likely to be true. It's firmly established that dinosaurs died out 75,000,000 years ago, or thereabouts. Any single report of them being around 50,000 years ago is going to be assumed to be in error. It doesn't mean that it is absolutely, totally impossible that a dinosaur was around 50,000, but just that it's so unlikely that you'd need extremely convincing evidence for it. If you can muster up the evidence then proceed to Stockholm and collect your Nobel.

If someone reports that the Sun is 93,000 miles from Earth people don't say "Wow, all those reports of 93,000,000 miles were way off." Instead they say "Clearly, the 93,000 was the mistake."

BTW, THE, do you apply the standard you seem to want to apply to global warming, evolution, etc, to every other aspect of science too? Or is it only these few that clash with your religious and political outlook?

I apply the standard when science starts dealing historical implications and future projects. Science does the here and now pretty well. It sucks at looking back in time, or looking forward.

 

[op2]

I apply the standard when science starts dealing historical implications and future projects. Science does the here and now pretty well. It sucks at looking back in time, or looking forward.

It sucks looking backward and forward? So astronomy and cosmology and geology and palentology, just to name a few off the top of my head, are out for you?

 

[TarHeelEer]

It sucks looking backward and forward? So astronomy and cosmology and geology and palentology, just to name a few off the top of my head, are out for you?

Those are still the here and now, for the most part. But when some scientist says, "X happened 4 qadrillion years ago", how can you prove it? You can't use scientific method. If you're a scientist at all, you should've agreed with me that science sucks at it.

 

[op2]

Those are still the here and now, for the most part. But when some scientist says, "X happened 4 qadrillion years ago", how can you prove it? You can't use scientific method. If you're a scientist at all, you should've agreed with me that science sucks at it.

Looking into outer space is looking into the past. Picking up a rock on Earth and figuring out what it is made of is looking into the past.

Genetics is another field that is useless if science can't look into the past.

For that matter, since EVERYTHING outside the present moment is the past or the future, pretty much nothing has any use if you can't look into the future or past.

I think you're a Bible believer. So you're telling me a book from thousands of years ago should carry weight but current scientific research about the past should be discounted?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

It sucks looking backward and forward? So astronomy and cosmology and geology and palentology, just to name a few off the top of my head, are out for you?

What does hair dressing have to do with the topic of science?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

In before someone thinks that was a real post

 

[TarHeelEer]

Looking into outer space is looking into the past. Picking up a rock on Earth and figuring out what it is made of is looking into the past.

Genetics is another field that is useless if science can't look into the past.

For that matter, since EVERYTHING outside the present moment is the past or the future, pretty much nothing has any use if you can't look into the future or past.

I think you're a Bible believer. So you're telling me a book from thousands of years ago should carry weight but current scientific research about the past should be discounted?

I'm telling you you can't use science to look at the past, make hypotheses, and prove them with science. "Why is that?" should've been your question from the getgo, rather than faking outrage.

Scientific method requires that you be able to test, re-test, and observe your findings. If you say something happened before humans were on the planet, I can tell you... noone observed it. Same for the future, until the future gets here, or it's proven incorrect before said future gets here.

Unless you've developed a time machine and you're holding out on us.

 

[op2]

I'm telling you you can't use science to look at the past, make hypotheses, and prove them with science. "Why is that?" should've been your question from the getgo, rather than faking outrage.

Scientific method requires that you be able to test, re-test, and observe your findings. If you say something happened before humans were on the planet, I can tell you... noone observed it. Same for the future, until the future gets here, or it's proven incorrect before said future gets here.

Unless you've developed a time machine and you're holding out on us.

No one has ever observed an electron but the computer you're using relies on us knowing what we think we know about electrons.

No one has ever observed the center of the Earth. Does that mean we don't know what it consists of?

Have ever observed gravity? I don't mean the effects of gravity, I mean gravity itself.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

No one has ever observed an electron but the computer you're using relies on us knowing what we think we know about electrons.

No one has ever observed the center of the Earth. Does that mean we don't know what it consists of?

Have ever observed gravity? I don't mean the effects of gravity, I mean gravity itself.

But we don't even know if gravity is really gravity. I mean we just named it that. It could be something completely different...like stratulicity or something. I'll go you one further. What if C-A-T actually spelled Dog? Right?

Do you really think you are going to convince him otherwise?

 

[TarHeelEer]

No one has ever observed an electron but the computer you're using relies on us knowing what we think we know about electrons.

No one has ever observed the center of the Earth. Does that mean we don't know what it consists of?

Have ever observed gravity? I don't mean the effects of gravity, I mean gravity itself.

Good examples.

We describe and test the impacts of gravity. We describe and test the impacts of electrons. We describe and test the chemical makeup of the the center of the earth, and its temperature.

We don't observe electrons nor gravity nor the center of the earth themselves. And we haven't made hypotheses about these objects or features that are politicized and controversial... there's no need to concern ourselves with them. They are what they are. Except when you find out the mantle has a lot more water in it than what you thought. Still not controversial.

But suppose, just for a second, that I, a leading prominent government scientist, all of a sudden hypothesized, "The mantle is going to collapse in 2 decades because the earth's core is going to explode it's too old". I should be able to provide scientific data based on scientific method. I wouldn't be able to, however, and everyone would laugh me off, as they should.

So scientists today, now say manmade global warming is the bomb. They've produced reams of temperature data, "massaged" data (first problem) back to the 1930's, and made up data beyond that based on what they think (second problem) the temperature was then based of other hypotheses about plant growth, vegetation, etc. Then they have extrapolated those hypotheses to computer models, that have all failed in their first 15 years of predictions. It must be their massaged and made up data, so they go make some of their massaged data more consumable by the models. I'm supposed to take these people serious?

Same with looking into the past beyond the human race, when noone was here to observe. It's all extrapolation, estimation, and best guess. As I've said before, they always ask when you turn a sample in to be dated, how old you think it is and why. That's not science.

 

[op2]

Good examples.

We describe and test the impacts of gravity. We describe and test the impacts of electrons. We describe and test the chemical makeup of the the center of the earth, and its temperature.

We don't observe electrons nor gravity nor the center of the earth themselves. And we haven't made hypotheses about these objects or features that are politicized and controversial... there's no need to concern ourselves with them. They are what they are. Except when you find out the mantle has a lot more water in it than what you thought. Still not controversial.

But suppose, just for a second, that I, a leading prominent government scientist, all of a sudden hypothesized, "The mantle is going to collapse in 2 decades because the earth's core is going to explode it's too old". I should be able to provide scientific data based on scientific method. I wouldn't be able to, however, and everyone would laugh me off, as they should.

So scientists today, now say manmade global warming is the bomb. They've produced reams of temperature data, "massaged" data (first problem) back to the 1930's, and made up data beyond that based on what they think (second problem) the temperature was then based of other hypotheses about plant growth, vegetation, etc. Then they have extrapolated those hypotheses to computer models, that have all failed in their first 15 years of predictions. It must be their massaged and made up data, so they go make some of their massaged data more consumable by the models. I'm supposed to take these people serious?

Same with looking into the past beyond the human race, when noone was here to observe. It's all extrapolation, estimation, and best guess. As I've said before, they always ask when you turn a sample in to be dated, how old you think it is and why. That's not science.

In other words, even if we can't observed something directly, we can observe it indirectly and still learn about it. We know that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium but nobody has ever been within 90,000,000 miles of it nor ever observed info from it that was less than 8 minutes old. We know what stars thousands of light years away were made of thousands of years ago. (One light year is six trillion miles.) We don't have to go stand on the surface in real time to learn about it.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

They didn't look at the data to determine what was wrong, they arbitrarily threw out the results, because it didn't meet their pattern of lie.... errrr, science.

By the way, this specimen that was c-14 dated was part of the T-Rex collagen find about 10 years ago. You know, where soft tissue existed in a T-Rex fossil that shouldn't have been there either if it were millions of years old. They now explain this that iron preserved the soft tissue. *snicker*

Layer upon layer of bologna smattered with spam. None of science's supposed historical findings can be tested using scientific method, so let's just make up stuff as we go.

Shocking....that Hugh Miller, creationist chemist, has an aol email address. I figured it might be .edu....as in bobjones.edu. It really is hard to believe that you believe what you say you do....that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I actually feel sorry for you but more for your kids. If you have any. seriously.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

In other words, even if we can't observed something directly, we can observe it indirectly and still learn about it. We know that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium but nobody has ever been within 90,000,000 miles of it nor ever observed info from it that was less than 8 minutes old. We know what stars thousands of light years away were made of thousands of years ago. (One light year is six trillion miles.) We don't have to go stand on the surface in real time to learn about it.

So instead of addressing his post, you throw more grenades out there.

 

[op2]

So instead of addressing his post, you throw more grenades out there.

I address his first two paragraphs (or three if you count "Good example" as a paragraph). I didn't think the rest of what he wrote was relevant.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I address his first two paragraphs (or three if you count "Good example" as a paragraph). I didn't think the rest of what he wrote was relevant.

You didn't address squat.

 

[op2]

You didn't address squat.

You said you can't know about things that no one observes. I mentioned things we know about that no one observes. You said we test the impacts of such things. I said, yes, we observe them indirectly, which is what testing the impacts is.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

They didn't look at the data to determine what was wrong, they arbitrarily threw out the results, because it didn't meet their pattern of lie.... errrr, science.

By the way, this specimen that was c-14 dated was part of the T-Rex collagen find about 10 years ago. You know, where soft tissue existed in a T-Rex fossil that shouldn't have been there either if it were millions of years old. They now explain this that iron preserved the soft tissue. *snicker*

Layer upon layer of bologna smattered with spam. None of science's supposed historical findings can be tested using scientific method, so let's just make up stuff as we go.

I think the letter is saying C-14 dating is not an accurate method of dating something 50,000 years old or older. I think the abstract was rejected on the basis of method, not conclusion.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I think the letter is saying C-14 dating is not an accurate method of dating something 50,000 years old or older. I think the abstract was rejected on the basis of method, not conclusion.

It scientifically isn't accurate at that age. The reason is because they're should be so limited a quantity of C14 that you can't determine a C14/C12 ratio with certainty. In this case where soft tissue exists (that shouldn't exist if it's millions of years old) the C14 hasn't decayed and has a measurable quantity. Anything millions of years old should have a non-quantifiable (small) amount of C14 left. So not only is there soft tissue where it shouldn't be, but there's also C14 where it shouldn't be.

It was rejected out of protection of their agenda.

 

[op2]

It scientifically isn't accurate at that age. The reason is because they're should be so limited a quantity of C14 that you can't determine a C14/C12 ratio with certainty. In this case where soft tissue exists (that shouldn't exist if it's millions of years old) the C14 hasn't decayed and has a measurable quantity. Anything millions of years old should have a non-quantifiable (small) amount of C14 left. So not only is there soft tissue where it shouldn't be, but there's also C14 where it shouldn't be.

It was rejected out of protection of their agenda.

So you're saying that dinosaurs existed 50,000 years ago? Can we put you on the record on that?

 

[TarHeelEer]

So you're saying that dinosaurs existed 50,000 years ago? Can we put you on the record on that?

If you can find where I said that, you can quote me on it. *smh*

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

So you're saying that dinosaurs existed 50,000 years ago? Can we put you on the record on that?

What's you explanation for the soft tissue?

 

[dave]

What's you explanation for the soft tissue?

Whatever science declares the official answer he will believe faithfully.

 

[op2]

What's you explanation for the soft tissue?

I don't know enough about stuff to converse on it or to say what the current science says about it, except that I do know that it says that dinosaurs went extinct long ago, 70,000,000 years or so.

 

[op2]

Whatever science declares the official answer he will believe faithfully.

Not precisely. I try to know what the current scientific consensus is as well as how sure or unsure they are of that, and then I respond based on that. Of course, I could be wrong about what I report and also the current scientific consensus could be wrong and if so it will eventually be uncovered and corrected, since there is no final unquestioned position in science.

Current scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming, but there is some disagreement as to whether it's happening or the extent to which it's happening, if it is happening a all. So there is a lot more variation and uncertainty about that are as opposed to, say, evolution, where there is virtual certainty that it happened and now the focus is on the how and why.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Not precisely. I try to know what the current scientific consensus is as well as how sure or unsure they are of that, and then I respond based on that. Of course, I could be wrong about what I report and also the current scientific consensus could be wrong and if so it will eventually be uncovered and corrected, since there is no final unquestioned position in science.

Current scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming, but there is some disagreement as to whether it's happening or the extent to which it's happening, if it is happening a all. So there is a lot more variation and uncertainty about that are as opposed to, say, evolution, where there is virtual certainty that it happened and now the focus is on the how and why.

First time I've seen you actually admit to there being uncertainty in the scientific community with regard to Climate Change

 

[dave]

Not precisely. I try to know what the current scientific consensus is as well as how sure or unsure they are of that, and then I respond based on that. Of course, I could be wrong about what I report and also the current scientific consensus could be wrong and if so it will eventually be uncovered and corrected, since there is no final unquestioned position in science.

Current scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming, but there is some disagreement as to whether it's happening or the extent to which it's happening, if it is happening a all. So there is a lot more variation and uncertainty about that are as opposed to, say, evolution, where there is virtual certainty that it happened and now the focus is on the how and why.

There is that consensus word again.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

I don't know enough about stuff to converse on it or to say what the current science says about it, except that I do know that it says that dinosaurs went extinct long ago, 70,000,000 years or so.

What does current science say about the probability of soft tissue existing after 70,000,000 years?

 

[op2]

What does current science say about the probability of soft tissue existing after 70,000,000 years?

I don't know.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I don't know.

Of course you don't.