[Fyron]

Originally posted by Aloofi:

quote:

---

Yes, it can be proven.

Calculating the age of a rock (or any old object) requires careful calculations involving the rates of isotopic decays and the average rates of increase of the levels of those isotopes. .

Don't you get it?
How can you be sure that the decay of isotops is constant, or that is not affected by wether?
How can you prove that 5 isotops means 5 years or whatever?
Nobody have taken a time machine to go back and make sure that all those time measuring "theories" actually work!!!

Am I the only one that sees a problem here?

---

Aloofi, all of those factors are taken into account in the caclulations. The decay is not quite constant, and that is factored in. The average increases over time are factored in.

And what SJ said.

Krsqk:

I'll deal with most of this later. For now, suffice it to say that at best, this blurs the line between science (repeatable, observable experimentation) and educated guessing. At worst, it blurs the line between science and pick a theory. You cannot experiment on the past, so origin theories are outside of the realm of science.

No one ever pretends to be able to experiment on the past. Scientific origin theories are based off of current observations, past observations, etc. No one has made any claims that they are absolute fact and there is no other possibility. That is what Creationists do, not scientists. Electron theory and quantum mechanics are our best guesses on how subatomic particles work. We can not experiment on them. Does that mean that those are out of the realm of science? Hardly. We can not experiment on stars, black holes, nebula, and other stellar phenomena. Does that mean that they are out of the realm of science? Certainly not.

The only people that have been lumping origins theories and evolution together are those that refuse to accept that their religious world view might not be entirely correct, so that they can dismiss them more easily.

Don't make Fyron straighten you out on evolution versus origins. Unless, as 99.9% of people, you use evolution to mean how everything came to be here, from the beginning to the present. Again, no origins theory can be proved, as there would have been no observation.

99.9% of ignorant people, yes. Weight of numbers for a belief by no means indicates that that belief is right. Again, astronomical theories can not be proven, as there would have been no observation. We can't see what other stars and such are actually like, just make guesses as to their nature based off of facts we do know and our observations. Much like evolution and origins theories. Hmm... anyone else see a connection? And before you say it, no, religious origins theories are not equivalent to scientific ones because they are not based off of logical reasoning and facts that we do know, they are based off of what some random person claimed to be true thousands of years ago with no evidence to back it up.

I'm assuming, again, that you're placing creationism on the same basis as evolution--that is, not as a theory of origins? Or are you comparing the two families of origins theory?

I was asking for a counter theory to evolution. Other people have commited the fallacy of comparing evolution with the origins aspects of Creationism, but I have not.

God's too busy answering my prayers to answer your questions.

I certainly hope that you are not really such an intolerant elitist as you just painted yourself with that remark... I am going to assume (hope) the contrary because of the smiley you included, but you never know. Such remarks do not help you make your point at all; in fact, they hurt it pretty severely.

I want to argue about origins--stop mixing evolution in with it. Why does every debate we have need to be about evolution? Why can't it be about origins? Maybe because one can't apply logic and science to it?

Yes, logic can be applied to origins. You haven't applied any logic to your side of the argument. But that does not mean that it can not be done. Go do some research on philosophical works and you will see that there are numerous people that come up with logical arguments for or against any of the myriad of sides in this issue.

I do not keep "mixing evolution in with it". Most of this thread has been about evolution and not origins.

That's the big problem here. In effect, the evolution "side" of this argument says "Creationists, produce proof for your side." Since the supernatural is unproveable, the creationist platform is assumed to be proven false. Logic itself would dictate that unproveability does not equal falsehood, and that quantifiability does not equal superiority.

Maybe you should take lessons in logic then. There are more ways to prove something than hard physical evidence. This is how things like origin theories can (though not all of them) fall under the realm of science.

[ May 20, 2003, 18:01: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]