94 replies to this topic

[Doe]

My opinion of you.

Zing.

Well that says a lot.

[Doe]

Just because someone couldn't name something doesn't mean it doesn't exist in this world.. There is so much left for humans to discover about our own planet. 
If you're going to try to make an argument, at least make a valid one

Based on everything we have already discovered, things tend to repeat themselves.
 It's leaning off of previous discoveries to predict future ones, derp.

 

Even if we do discover something that never changes, eventually the sun will explode and it will be sucked into a black hole and turned into dark matter or whatever. Thus change. Of course that's a theory of black holes.

 

Everything is a product of it's environments.

Just because someone couldn't name something doesn't mean it doesn't exist in this world.. There is so much left for humans to discover about our own planet. 
If you're going to try to make an argument, at least make a valid one

If you're going to try and discredit an argument, don't always take it at face value actually stop and think about it.

Edited by Doe, 23 April 2014 - 09:13 AM.

[Turnip]

My opinion of you.

Zing.

 

[Keil]

If you're going to try and discredit an argument, don't always take it at face value actually stop and think about it.

Just gonna leave this here.

Spoiler

[Doe]

Hey man I already got haters, I must be doing something right.

Just gonna leave this here.

Spoiler

What do you keep a collection of metaphorically incorrect gifs for every situation or something?

[Sweeney]

Based on everything we have already discovered, things tend to repeat themselves.
 It's leaning off of previous discoveries to predict future ones, derp.

Inductive reasoning hasn't been in vogue for decades. Haven't you read any Popper?

[Doe]

Inductive reasoning hasn't been in vogue for decades. Haven't you read any Popper?

Is wrong.

 

It works.

[Sweeney]

Is wrong.
 
It works.

The father of, essentially, the modern scientific method is... wrong? Because you say so?

[Doe]

The father of, essentially, the modern scientific method is... wrong? Because you say so?

Yes, sure let's just let you keep putting words in my mouth.

The method works. It's lead to a lot of discoveries. Empirical falsification isn't that great of an alternative, it's also just a theory. Science continuously proves and disproves itself and more or less runs around in a circle, with the rest of the scientific community following the beliefs of the proverbial alpha male.

 

They continue to run in circles and constantly try to perfect and change scientific methods with very little merits behind doing so, just because of bandwagon mentality.

 

Haven't you read any Hadnagy?

Edited by Doe, 23 April 2014 - 10:17 AM.

[Sweeney]

Yes, sure let's just let you keep putting words in my mouth.
The method works. It's lead to a lot of discoveries. Empirical falsification isn't that great of an alternative, it's also just a theory. Science continuously proves and disproves itself and more or less runs around in a circle, with the rest of the scientific community following the beliefs of the proverbial alpha male.
 
They continue to run in circles and constantly try to perfect and change scientific methods with very little merits behind doing so, just because of bandwagon mentality.
 
Haven't you read any Hadnagy?

I quoted you directly. I didn't put any words into your mouth - everyone can clearly see the post to which I was responding.

The fact that you've used the phrase "just a theory" demonstrates that you're not exactly clued in on the scientific method. A theory is a hypothesis backed up by research and evidence - not "just" any old idea someone pulls out of their ass. A theory isn't "just" anything. If science continually ran in circles, we wouldn't have the theory of evolution. Or any advancements at all.

The fact that you don't understand or appreciate the merits of scientific endeavour does not mean that there are none.

And no, I haven't read any Hadnagy, though I have read a little Mitnick. I don't think social engineering is particularly relevant to the philosophy of science, though.

[Tetiel]

Perhaps this is my own little philosophy, but if you look at the second law of thermodynamics - "the entropy of a closed system will never decrease because it will always move towards a state of higher entropy" Doe is actually somewhat right. Evolution is based off of the idea of entropy. More and more chaos is introduced into the system and we adapt, evolve to deal with it. Everything does change in time. Diamonds will eventually turn back into their more amorphous state, graphite. It may take eons, but it will happen. The basic idea is that we originally came from a state of order and we are slowly moving more and more into chaos. In fact, if there is a god, it's chaos because chaos created all life. I think it's actually a very beautiful way of stating things.

[rapmasterme]

Guys didn't you see the Bill Nye debate? or God's Not Dead? I got converted by these two things and now am a born again Christian!

[Pilot]

Guys didn't you see the Bill Nye debate? or God's Not Dead? I got converted by these two things and now am a born again Christian!

 

Yeah and Bill Nye destroyed him aka went HAM on Ham

[Grandmaster]

I don't think evolution can ever be proven as a fact. It remains a theory. For something to be proven as a fact, there should be indisputable evidence.

 

The basic principle of evolution theory is that every living organism in this world has an ancestral form so all living organisms start with as a single cell, then evolves over a very long period of time to current variety of living organisms today. The variety is mainly due to adaptation to different environment.

 

However, to prove this, you need to prove that Earth has a very long history, billions or trillions of years, in order to have the complexity of organisms that we have today. So far, the most accurate method is carbon dating which can only prove that Earth has thousands of years of history. The other method is often used is half-life of radioactive compounds. However, the danger here is that scientist usually extrapolate the results so that's why they can claim that there are billions of years of history for Earth. Nobody has observed the full decay of any radioactive compounds over a span of billions of years so the results can only be extrapolate based on results over a span of decades or centuries.

 

In addition, evolution theory is still unable to explain the Cambrian Explosion in which many new species suddenly emerged with no ancestral form.

 

Furthermore, the ape that is claimed to be human's ancestral form is only 95% similarity in DNA using current technology. That is insufficent to qualify the ape as human's ancestral form in terms of DNA similarity. The original claim was 99% similarity.

[sixkitties]

I'm loosely religious, so I'll put my input, since I'm more of a creationist.

 

I believe in evolution, just not so far as a single cell. I like to think that there was a moderately small amount of animals on the planet, and then they evolved from there. 

But I also believe the earth is billions old. So.

I think I'm a pretty rare creationist. 

 

Personally, I think religion and science should be friends. From my perspective, there's no reason why a higher being couldn't have created physics/biology/ect, and just set up the dominos and let them fall. Hurray middle ground!

[Sweeney]

I don't think evolution can ever be proven as a fact. It remains a theory. For something to be proven as a fact, there should be indisputable evidence.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. There is indisputable evidence.
 

The basic principle of evolution theory is that every living organism in this world has an ancestral form so all living organisms start with as a single cell, then evolves over a very long period of time to current variety of living organisms today. The variety is mainly due to adaptation to different environment.

That is not the "basic principle of evolution" at all.
 

However, to prove this, you need to prove that Earth has a very long history, billions or trillions of years, in order to have the complexity of organisms that we have today. So far, the most accurate method is carbon dating which can only prove that Earth has thousands of years of history. The other method is often used is half-life of radioactive compounds. However, the danger here is that scientist usually extrapolate the results so that's why they can claim that there are billions of years of history for Earth. Nobody has observed the full decay of any radioactive compounds over a span of billions of years so the results can only be extrapolate based on results over a span of decades or centuries.

Wrong. Surprise!
Carbon dating is not used to estimate the age of the Earth. Never has been, never will be. The age of the Earth (and the rest of the solar system) is calculated via radiometric dating (which, in fairness, you did mention, but clearly do not understand).
 

In addition, evolution theory is still unable to explain the Cambrian Explosion in which many new species suddenly emerged with no ancestral form.

The Cambrian explosion took tens of millions of years to take place. The reason that so few "ancestral forms" are found is that this event was the "point" at which many of the hard-bodied organisms began to show up - as I'm sure you're aware, fossilisation of soft-bodied organisms is far rarer.
 

Furthermore, the ape that is claimed to be human's ancestral form is only 95% similarity in DNA using current technology. That is insufficent to qualify the ape as human's ancestral form in terms of DNA similarity. The original claim was 99% similarity.

What? We don't have any DNA from "the ape that is claimed to be human's ancestral form".

[Grandmaster]

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. There is indisputable evidence.
 

That is not the "basic principle of evolution" at all.
 

Wrong. Surprise!
Carbon dating is not used to estimate the age of the Earth. Never has been, never will be. The age of the Earth (and the rest of the solar system) is calculated via radiometric dating (which, in fairness, you did mention, but clearly do not understand).
 

The Cambrian explosion took tens of millions of years to take place. The reason that so few "ancestral forms" are found is that this event was the "point" at which many of the hard-bodied organisms began to show up - as I'm sure you're aware, fossilisation of soft-bodied organisms is far rarer.
 

What? We don't have any DNA from "the ape that is claimed to be human's ancestral form".

 

Since we are on a different page about the basic principle of evolution theory, maybe you could first explain the important features of basic principle that has been proven based on your understanding. Then we can take it from there. For the points I have made, I will get more evidence to substantiate my claim after my exam on 6 May.

[Sweeney]

Since we are on a different page about the basic principle of evolution theory, maybe you could first explain the important features of basic principle that has been proven based on your understanding. Then we can take it from there. For the points I have made, I will get more evidence to substantiate my claim after my exam on 6 May.

The theory of evolution states that variation within a population results in a range of survivability and fecundity that is correlated to heritable traits.

Or, some things are different, and that makes them better at making babies, and that results in babies that are better at making babies too.

[Sweeney]

I will get more evidence to substantiate my claim after my exam on 6 May.

[Grandmaster]

The theory of evolution states that variation within a population results in a range of survivability and fecundity that is correlated to heritable traits.

Or, some things are different, and that makes them better at making babies, and that results in babies that are better at making babies too.

 

Isn't this more of genetic heredity, rather than evolution theory?

 

Wrong. Surprise!
Carbon dating is not used to estimate the age of the Earth. Never has been, never will be. The age of the Earth (and the rest of the solar system) is calculated via radiometric dating (which, in fairness, you did mention, but clearly do not understand).

 

Carbon dating (also known as radiocarbon dating) is also a form of radiometric dating. The detailed explanation and analysis of how it supports a young Earth can be found at http://www.answersin...rove-the-bible

Basically, the underlying assumption for those who used carbon dating to support evolution theory is the ratio of 14-C to 12-C remains constant throughout the life of Earth and it is found to be untrue by RATE Group Findings.

 

Another more commonly used form of radiometric dating is Uranium-238. Based on the measurements they used, the estimated half-life is about 4.5 billion years. As to how they made the measurement, you can refer to http://hps.org/publi.../ate/q8270.html

They basically use a short interval of time to measure the disintegration rate and number of radioactive atoms present to derive the half-time. Hence, the result is considered to be extrapolated with the underlying assumption that the disintegration rate is constant.

Edited by Grandmaster, 07 May 2014 - 07:52 AM.

[Sweeney]

Isn't this more of genetic heredity, rather than evolution theory?

No.
 

Carbon dating (also known as radiocarbon dating) is also a form of radiometric dating. The detailed explanation and analysis of how it supports a young Earth can be found at http://www.answersin...rove-the-bible
Basically, the underlying assumption for those who used carbon dating to support evolution theory is the ratio of 14-C to 12-C remains constant throughout the life of Earth and it is found to be untrue by RATE Group Findings.
 
Another more commonly used form of radiometric dating is Uranium-238. Based on the measurements they used, the estimated half-life is about 4.5 billion years. As to how they made the measurement, you can refer to http://hps.org/publi.../ate/q8270.html
They basically use a short interval of time to measure the disintegration rate and number of radioactive atoms present to derive the half-time. Hence, the result is considered to be extrapolated with the underlying assumption that the disintegration rate is constant.

Yes, carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating, but it still isn't used to age the Earth. Feel free to insert an "other form of" before my mention of radiometric dating if that helps to clarify things.

It's true that no one has observed the full half-life of Uranium-238 decay, because it's really freaking long. However, that doesn't mean that it is a number that someone pulled out of thin air. It is based on readings over shorter periods, as you said, and extrapolated.
The "underlying assumption" of a constant decay rate is supported by the data also, you know. It's not like the decay rate was measured once, and the entire scientific community was like "Well, ok, that's done. Nice job guys."
On top of that, were decay rates not constant, then there would be no reason for all the different forms of radiometric dating to agree on a 4.5-ish billion year old solar system. But, shock and surprise, they do.

The Earth is old. Evolution happens.

[Grandmaster]

No.
 

Yes, carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating, but it still isn't used to age the Earth. Feel free to insert an "other form of" before my mention of radiometric dating if that helps to clarify things.

It's true that no one has observed the full half-life of Uranium-238 decay, because it's really freaking long. However, that doesn't mean that it is a number that someone pulled out of thin air. It is based on readings over shorter periods, as you said, and extrapolated.
The "underlying assumption" of a constant decay rate is supported by the data also, you know. It's not like the decay rate was measured once, and the entire scientific community was like "Well, ok, that's done. Nice job guys."
On top of that, were decay rates not constant, then there would be no reason for all the different forms of radiometric dating to agree on a 4.5-ish billion year old solar system. But, shock and surprise, they do.

The Earth is old. Evolution happens.

 

This kind of one word answer hardly adds any value to the discussion. If you are answering no, at least you must show the difference between these two concepts of genetic heredity and evolution theory, then say why your definition of evolution theory is correct.

 

The two main forms of radiometric dating are carbon-dating and uranium-dating. Carbon-dating is first developed by William Libby who won him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. From then on, it is being used to date artifacts and fossils to determine the longest items existed or living organisms that survive in the Earth, hence inferring the life of the Earth. Then people start to realise that the half-life of carbon isotopes is only 5000+ years and hence the dating can only be limited to 60,000 years. Then they further suggest that rocks or other things in the Earth maybe longer than 60,000 years, that's why they started to change to other forms of dating material such as uranium which has a much longer half-life and hence can date even longer limits. That forms the basis of their speculation that Earth have billions of years of history. However, due to carbon isotopes having a shorter half-life, it makes it possible to prove the underlying assumption that isotopes ratio is in fact not constant. Therefore, this also cast doubts into the conclusion that disintegration rate can be constant for other radioactive compounds such as uranium. Of course, people don't make one-off measurement about disintegration rate but as long as you have only measured over a short period of time, it is unlikely to reflect the reality of the full decay cycle.

 

Let me give you an example from my area of specialisation, electrical engineering. In electrical engineering, we controls systems. For example, if we want to control an oil filling system, we will first set our control to be small increment of maybe 0.1, then we may see that the oil level rises to 0.1 litres. So we tested a lot more control variables, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4....,1. Then we also realise that the oil level rises in proportion to the control input, 0.2 litres, 0.3......1. So we arrive at the conclusion that the control is proportional control. Assuming the container used to fill the oil is 10 litres, so we thought, let's just use control of 10. Before we know it, the oil level rises to more than 10 litres and got spilled. Why did this happens? Because the system is a non-linear system, by testing small increments, it's possible to approximate the result as a straight line, but once the increments is large enough, the results can no longer be approximated accurately by straight line. So our key mistake is that we extrapolated our results based on control variables only up to 1. We could have done it better to try out higher increment values such as 2, 5, 7, 8. Then we may take note of the non-linear relationship and not make the assumption that this is a proportional control.

 

This example is similar to what is happening in the measurement of disintegration rate, as long as we keep on testing on short time interval or short time increment, we will be unable to get the actual picture of how disintegration rate changes with time. For a half-life of 4.5 billion years, we should at least have 1, 2, 3 billions years  kind of data to be able to prove confidently that disintegration rate is constant regardless of time. Therefore, the assumption could not be proven correct and hence the conclusion is also highly disputable.

[Sweeney]

This kind of one word answer hardly adds any value to the discussion. If you are answering no, at least you must show the difference between these two concepts of genetic heredity and evolution theory, then say why your definition of evolution theory is correct.

Querying my definition does not add anything to the discussion either. I gave you the definition of evolution theory as I learned and used it in my Zoology degree. If you want to tell me that the definition is wrong, inaccurate or misapplied in some way, then you may wish to be specific about your queries.
If you do not do so, I see no real need to be more specific in my reply.

However, in the interest of putting the nonsense to rest:
Genetic heredity is the theory that describes specifically how phenotypical traits are a part of the heritable genotype, how that genotype is inherited, and what implications that has on the wider field of biology. Evolution, in the modern synthesis, takes note of genetics because it works. The Darwinian theory of evolution, however, was proposed by Darwin in roughly the form I expressed earier before genetics was a known phenomenon. The theory of genetics makes no comment on the fecundity and survivability of organsisms in a population, and the theory of evolution is based entirely on variation in fecundity and survivability of organisms in a population.

They are not even remotely similar.
 

The two main forms of radiometric dating are carbon-dating and uranium-dating. Carbon-dating is first developed by William Libby who won him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. From then on, it is being used to date artifacts and fossils to determine the longest items existed or living organisms that survive in the Earth, hence inferring the life of the Earth. Then people start to realise that the half-life of carbon isotopes is only 5000+ years and hence the dating can only be limited to 60,000 years. Then they further suggest that rocks or other things in the Earth maybe longer than 60,000 years, that's why they started to change to other forms of dating material such as uranium which has a much longer half-life and hence can date even longer limits. That forms the basis of their speculation that Earth have billions of years of history. However, due to carbon isotopes having a shorter half-life, it makes it possible to prove the underlying assumption that isotopes ratio is in fact not constant. Therefore, this also cast doubts into the conclusion that disintegration rate can be constant for other radioactive compounds such as uranium. Of course, people don't make one-off measurement about disintegration rate but as long as you have only measured over a short period of time, it is unlikely to reflect the reality of the full decay cycle.

If it is possible, as you have said, to prove that the half-life (note: not rate of decay - rate of decay is decidedly non-linear) is variable, then why has it not been done?
The answer, of course, is that it's not possible. Half-lives are, on average, perfectly constant.
 

Let me give you an example from my area of specialisation, electrical engineering. In electrical engineering, we controls systems. For example, if we want to control an oil filling system, we will first set our control to be small increment of maybe 0.1, then we may see that the oil level rises to 0.1 litres. So we tested a lot more control variables, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4....,1. Then we also realise that the oil level rises in proportion to the control input, 0.2 litres, 0.3......1. So we arrive at the conclusion that the control is proportional control. Assuming the container used to fill the oil is 10 litres, so we thought, let's just use control of 10. Before we know it, the oil level rises to more than 10 litres and got spilled. Why did this happens? Because the system is a non-linear system, by testing small increments, it's possible to approximate the result as a straight line, but once the increments is large enough, the results can no longer be approximated accurately by straight line. So our key mistake is that we extrapolated our results based on control variables only up to 1. We could have done it better to try out higher increment values such as 2, 5, 7, 8. Then we may take note of the non-linear relationship and not make the assumption that this is a proportional control.

This is spectacularly irrelevant.
The fact that the same assumptions, when applied to a different system, do not work is entirely unsurprising.

This example is similar to what is happening in the measurement of disintegration rate, as long as we keep on testing on short time interval or short time increment, we will be unable to get the actual picture of how disintegration rate changes with time. For a half-life of 4.5 billion years, we should at least have 1, 2, 3 billions years  kind of data to be able to prove confidently that disintegration rate is constant regardless of time. Therefore, the assumption could not be proven correct and hence the conclusion is also highly disputable.

No, we don't need to do that at all.
The fact is that multiple data sources agree with a 4.5-ish billion year old solar system. If half-lives were not constant, this would not be the case.

[Grandmaster]

Querying my definition does not add anything to the discussion either. I gave you the definition of evolution theory as I learned and used it in my Zoology degree. If you want to tell me that the definition is wrong, inaccurate or misapplied in some way, then you may wish to be specific about your queries.
If you do not do so, I see no real need to be more specific in my reply.

However, in the interest of putting the nonsense to rest:
Genetic heredity is the theory that describes specifically how phenotypical traits are a part of the heritable genotype, how that genotype is inherited, and what implications that has on the wider field of biology. Evolution, in the modern synthesis, takes note of genetics because it works. The Darwinian theory of evolution, however, was proposed by Darwin in roughly the form I expressed earier before genetics was a known phenomenon. The theory of genetics makes no comment on the fecundity and survivability of organsisms in a population, and the theory of evolution is based entirely on variation in fecundity and survivability of organisms in a population.

They are not even remotely similar.
 

If it is possible, as you have said, to prove that the half-life (note: not rate of decay - rate of decay is decidedly non-linear) is variable, then why has it not been done?
The answer, of course, is that it's not possible. Half-lives are, on average, perfectly constant.
 

This is spectacularly irrelevant.
The fact that the same assumptions, when applied to a different system, do not work is entirely unsurprising.


No, we don't need to do that at all.
The fact is that multiple data sources agree with a 4.5-ish billion year old solar system. If half-lives were not constant, this would not be the case.

 

This is at least better in understanding your viewpoints, especially when we are from different fields and we analyse the same issue from different perspectives. Debate is not just about the people involved in the debate, it is also helpful for others to see the two sides of arguments to allow them to gain a better understanding of topic in contention.

 

By the half-life concept, the decay will follow an exponential decay but I don't think there's anyone who has ever even gathered data for the full decay of any radioactive compounds used for radiometric dating simply because there's no single effort to trace these radioactive compounds for thousands of years or above. Therefore, this remains a theoretical concept and have not been proven. Hence, whether half-life is constant or not is still disputable. Unproven does not mean that it is right, it just means that it is still debatable until clear evidence has surfaced.

 

What I have highlighted earlier is not about proving that half-life is constant, but mainly due to the shorter half-life of carbon isotopes, we are able to test it against the evolution timeline. Below is what is being quoted from the earlier link that I have posted, not sure if you have taken a look at it.

 

"Samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained these ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, from samples collected from major coalfields across the United States. The chosen coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples, in all three “time periods”, displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years."

 

The field of engineering and science all uses the same set of scientific approaches to come up with any conclusions and here I specially highlighted the small increment of control variables as analogy to increment of small time interval. I don't see the inappropriateness of this analogy. Systems and fields may be different, but the key concept of scientific approach is universal.

 

Can you provide the links or evidence to different multiple data sources?