Ahab Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I say that because that is what actual scientists say.You should try to correct them just as I try to correct the general idea. The fact that scientists say something doesn't mean it is true.Btw, I don't usually watch videos without any captioning.
Rob Osborn Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 1st.Some people want to be seen as experts in fields were they are not. Being an expert in cars does not make one an expert in Anthropology. Being an expert in religion also does not make one an expert in cars etc. So when one is asked for peer review one expects a similar expert to review his/her work, i.e. a scientist will be peer review another scientist, a car expert would be peer reviewed by another car expert. It is simple as that. 2nd.Every word or utterance our church leaders write or say does not have to be official church doctrine or even church policy, even when such comes to their minds by personal revelation. If it is easier to convey a message by writing a story of a talking donkey, or a whale swallowing up a grown man to get the message across and for a message to stand the test of time as well then a symbolic language could be used and could have been obtained by revelation. This does not necessarily mean a donkey actually spoke or a whale swallowed up a man (even though it could have happened, because God can make it so), Example; The Book of Mormon is published in 1830 full of the Kings English this does not mean that the Nephites and Lamanites (not matter where their geography) spoke the same way as in the King James Bible, yet it was translated and published that way for our benefit. For the literalist out there who subscribes to a 6000 year old earth, or no evolution, etc., perhaps you might want to consider the message and not the literal meaning. To base a belief tightly focused on the literal account of the story of the creation in Genesis just might oppose the message its author wanted to give to us in these last days.The RATE project was conducted by scientists. I dont know what the big deal is?
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 SO WHAT! I can find "scientist" deniers of a round earth too.SEE Flat Earth Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
katherine the great Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I get what you're talking about. I'm just saying that all people can gain knowledge and intelligence without any dependency on degrees from man-made institutions and without any need to follow their rules. It's not about authority. It's about who we can learn from, and who has knowledge and intelligence. Well of course we can learn valuable things from many different sources. Wisdom especially cannot be gleaned from books--only experience. But we have been talking peer review and who is or is not acceptable to participate in that formal process.
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 SO WHAT! I can find "scientist" deniers of a round earth too. SEE Flat Earth Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society The big difference is that the scientists from the RATE project actually used science to prove that the scientific dating process is flawed. (BTW, I find it of some interest here that none of you scientists with your degrees have tried to refute the RATE project with your own intellect)
Anijen Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 The big difference is that the scientists from the RATE project actually used pseudo science to prove show that the scientific dating process is flawed.(BTW, I find it of some interest here that none of you scientists with your degrees have tried to refute the RATE project with your own intellect)It would be a waste of time for them to do so. A simple internet search brings up many credible scientist refuting RATE.herehereherehere These took me less than two minutes to find. The main argument I have found in reading some of these articles is the Young Earth people are testing samples that they know before hand are going to have the testing results they desire. A double blind test shows a much older earth. Sorry Rob. I really feel sorry for your constant striking out in front of us. I really do, okay I don't, but you should realize that many of our church leaders who have had a scientific back ground disagree with you.
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 It would be a waste of time for them to do so. A simple internet search brings up many credible scientist refuting RATE. here here here here These took me less than two minutes to find. The main argument I have found in reading some of these articles is the Young Earth people are testing samples that they know before hand are going to have the testing results they desire. A double blind test shows a much older earth. Sorry Rob. I really feel sorry for your constant striking out in front of us. I really do, okay I don't, but you should realize that many of our church leaders who have had a scientific back ground disagree with you. But I was asking if any scientists on here could give their own parofessional analysis of the RATE project. We never get past the part where they find out they do work for creationist organizations and so automatically discount them.
katherine the great Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 But I was asking if any scientists on here could give their own parofessional analysis of the RATE project. We never get past the part where they find out they do work for creationist organizations and so automatically discount them.. Let them publish it and I'll look at it critically. What are they afraid of? An honest critique?
Anijen Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 But I was asking if any scientists on here could give their own parofessional analysis of the RATE project. As kathrine the great has stated have them publish then she will give her professional analysis. I will not add my analysis but I will ask a couple friends who are much more knowledgeable in that field. Question; why would you accept someone on this boards professional analysis over those who have already done so? Personally from a quick study of your posts, I do not think you will accept any analysis if it does not match your own views. Sad really.
thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 But I was asking if any scientists on here could give their own parofessional analysis of the RATE project. As kathrine the great has stated have them publish then she will give her professional analysis. I will not add my analysis but I will ask a couple friends who are much more knowledgeable in that field. Question; why would you accept someone on this boards professional analysis over those who have already done so? Personally from a quick study of your posts, I do not think you will accept any analysis if it does not match your own views. Sad really. While I am not in that field of science. I can speak authoritatively in that one field. My field of expertise is Sociology. That being said I do know how to read. The RATE project comes nowhere close to meeting any objective science standards. For radiometric dating of C-14 SEE http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
rodheadlee Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 You don't get it Ahab. The people of whom you speak have no credibility in a field in which they are not certified. Every field has "experts" who are well respected and others who are not. But you cannot expect a person who does not follow the scientific method to be accepted as a peer by those who do. It won't happen. If a person wants to be a doctor, they have to go to medical school, do their internship and residency and establish a practice. If a person wants to be a practicing lawyer, they have to go to law school and pass the bar. If a person wants to be a credible scientist, they have to follow the same process other credible scientists do. That's just the way its done. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't expect the rest of the world who follows the accepted procedure to accept it. Would you accept the priesthood authority of someone who does not hold the priesthood that you recognize as valid?just because someone is certified it doesn't mean they are credible.
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 While I am not in that field of science. I can speak authoritatively in that one field. My field of expertise is Sociology. That being said I do know how to read. The RATE project comes nowhere close to meeting any objective science standards. For radiometric dating of C-14 SEE http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-datingSo what do you have to say then when dinosaur bones are found having soft tissue and results from c-14 dating yield numbers in thousands, not millions, of years old? Is it all a giant fabrication?
Anijen Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) So what do you have to say then when dinosaur bones are found having soft tissue and results from c-14 dating yield numbers in thousands, not millions, of years old? Is it all a giant fabrication?Since birds are the descendants of dinosaurs perhaps the sample came from a bird which lived thousands of years ago. Or perhaps they fudged their numbers. I wouldn't put it pass them since they wont publish and have been known to only test certain rocks or other matter knowing before hand they will produce the results they want. They need to allow other scientist in to it least objectively observe their processes. The best would be to have a double blind test sent to three independent labs. Is it all a giant fabrication?Perhaps so. All the more reason to conduct test from independent labs. Edited March 25, 2014 by Anijen
katherine the great Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 just because someone is certified it doesn't mean they are credible. I didn't say otherwise. Read the thread in context and you will understand what I'm saying.
thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 So what do you have to say then when dinosaur bones are found having soft tissue and results from c-14 dating yield numbers in thousands, not millions, of years old? Is it all a giant fabrication? There is not enough C-14 above background in dinosaur bones to establish age beyond about 70,000 years old.
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 There is not enough C-14 above background in dinosaur bones to establish age beyond about 70,000 years old.But when they are tested they yield results less than 50-70 thousand years old.
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 As has been repeated shown to you science is NOT Atheistic. It is NOT Theistic either. It is of necessity Agnostic on questions of God. So you are being incredibly obtuse or deliberately being disingenuous. Your choice.Just being truthful. Organizations such as the NCSE, NAS and ACLU have an agenda to remove all mention of God from knowledge.
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Since birds are the descendants of dinosaurs perhaps the sample came from a bird which lived thousands of years ago. Or perhaps they fudged their numbers. I wouldn't put it pass them since they wont publish and have been known to only test certain rocks or other matter knowing before hand they will produce the results they want. They need to allow other scientist in to it least objectively observe their processes. The best would be to have a double blind test sent to three independent labs. Perhaps so. All the more reason to conduct test from independent labs.Perhaps mainstream science has always been fudging thing up and won't accept the real truth. It seems like whenever something is out of line with their precious theory they change the rules or the goal posts.
Anijen Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Perhaps mainstream science has always been fudging thing up and won't accept the real truth. It seems like whenever something is out of line with their precious theory they change the rules or the goal posts.Highly doubtful. "Mainstream science has allowed many other scientist to observe their process and have published their findings. Your allegation is all "mainstream scientist" has fudged their findings because they cant accept "real truth", while the one supposed scientific team at RATE have not. That is unreasonable, highly illogical, and simply ludicrous. First ask yourself why one scientific team would collaborate another unknown scientific teams analysis? They have no motive. Now ask your self why RATE team wont allow any credible scientific team outside of RATE review and test their findings? Perhaps because RATEs science wont pass. Why else wouldn't they allow an independent team review? On a side note is there any other type of truth other than "real truth," Kind of like saying he/she is a direct descendant when any descendant qualifies as a direct descendant.. But I'm just being snarky now, carry on. Edited March 25, 2014 by Anijen
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Highly doubtful. "Mainstream science has allowed many other scientist to observe their process and have published their findings. Your allegation is all "mainstream scientist" has fudged their findings because they cant accept "real truth", while the one supposed scientific team at RATE have not. That is unreasonable, highly illogical, and simply ludicrous. First ask yourself why one scientific team would collaborate another unknown scientific teams analysis? They have no motive. Now ask your self why RATE team wont allow any credible scientific team outside of RATE review and test their findings? Perhaps because RATEs science wont pass. Why else wouldn't they allow an independent team review? On a side note is there any other type of truth other than "real truth," Kind of like saying he/she is a direct descendant when any descendant qualifies as a direct descendant.. But I'm just being snarky now, carry on.I am constantly reminded of the finding of soft tissue inside of dinosaur bones. They have completely started moving the goal posts here because soft tissue isn't supposed to last for even a few million years let alone a hundred and fifty million years. This is a complete reversal of their rules they at one time said were fact and unchangeable.
thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Just being truthful. Organizations such as the NCSE, NAS and ACLU have an agenda to remove all mention of God from knowledge. No you're not. That is a damnable lie that any of those organization have an agenda to remove all mention of God from knowledge. Here is what the NAS actually says about God/religionhttp://www.nas.edu/evolution/FAQ.html Here is what the NCSE actually says about God.http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god While not a scientific organization the ACLU protects us all from government enforced religious practice.https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/free-exercise-religion
thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 I am constantly reminded of the finding of soft tissue inside of dinosaur bones. They have completely started moving the goal posts here because soft tissue isn't supposed to last for even a few million years let alone a hundred and fifty million years. This is a complete reversal of their rules they at one time said were fact and unchangeable.Not so much. SEEhttp://phys.org/news/2011-06-evidence-dinosaur-soft-tissue.html
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 No you're not. That is a damnable lie that any of those organization have an agenda to remove all mention of God from knowledge. Here is what the NAS actually says about God/religionhttp://www.nas.edu/evolution/FAQ.html Here is what the NCSE actually says about God.http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god While not a scientific organization the ACLU protects us all from government enforced religious practice.https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/free-exercise-religionIf it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck....its probably a duck! Those organizations are as atheist as they come. I stand by those words!
katherine the great Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck....its probably a duck! Those organizations are as atheist as they come. I stand by those words!Those words with you standing by them just really mean nothing. How about a little bit of evidence?
thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck....its probably a duck! Those organizations are as atheist as they come. I stand by those words! Then you don't know what the heck you are talking about.
Recommended Posts