by Caupon 81 Replies latest jw friends
One_day, if you don't trust scientists why not do your own scientific research? Seriously, mathematics is a pure science that even children can get their heads around.
It can prove that 2 fish + 5 loaves cannot feed 5000 individuals with leftovers that total more than the original amount.
Do the sums for yourself if you don't trust those pesky, agenda ridden, money grubbing scientists.
You seem to think scientists are higher beings not subject to the normal failings like us ordinary people, well me, not you of course.
Of course there are mistakes made both intentionally and unintentionally but they are usually found through peer review and evaluation and brought to attention quickly.
Where does that happen in the religious community ?
It doesn't Why, ? because religious leaders are more concerned about securing and supporting their own created doctrines or knowledge base to inherently create power and control around themselves.
The JW religion is a good example of that.
Dear Cofty,
This is factually incorrect and demonstrates a wilful ignorance of how science works.
Did you read Wien's paper?
You seem blissfully unaware that assumptions are being made when it comes to interpreting data. The paper you cite proves the point. Spot the assumption about C-14 calibration in the following extract, from p. 14 in Wien's paper,
If one predicts a carbon-14 age assuming that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the air has stayed constant
Now, this might be a valid assumption. But then it might not. The assumption itself is not testable, and therefore not strictly-speaking scientific; no one was around to record initial C-14/12 ratios over the last 40,000 years. So any conclusions drawn from basic assumptions are only ever as valid as the assumptions.
All knowledge, not just science, is founded on assumptions. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you're aware of them! Assumptions have often proved to be wrong. Challenge your assumptions, and everyone else's too. And be wary. Who was it who said that, When everyone around you shares the same assumptions, you start to think that it's reality…
Regards, Syd
If you are part of the science establishment
"Please provide an example in recent history of your complaint." --not complaining really,
By nature, out of the box discoveries, are often made by those unrestricted by the discipline of the professionals working in the "field". I hope to see discoveries that were not given the Nobel prize, or merely gave the impetus for the experts to take over. Often the Nobel prize is given to the head of laboratories, rather than the graduate alone that had the "Eureka" moment, but
How about Albert Einstein, that never got a timely Nobel recognition for his [almost]*** seminal early work on time/energy/ mass/ space, work that was done while he had no academic position? but his later obscure contribution on the photoelectric effect, that gave him the Nobel? if it can happen to Albert, it could have,- and can happen again.
*** Maxwell, Rieman, Lorenz
Syd - If you read the paper you will see that any initial assumptions are independently verified by other methods.
This thread is about the dating of fossils of human ancestors. C14 is not used for this purpose. Wien's paper describes the many radiometric clocks that are used to date fossils and how their veracity is checked.
No guesswork or assumptions are required.
Hi Cofty,
That the methods verify each other only demonstrates that they've been calibrated against each other. Or that they've chosen fudge factors that agree with other fudge factors. But that's just double fudge!! (Nice with ice-cream.)
Which dating technique requires NO assumptions? Could you highlight one? I'll guarantee you there are multiple underlying assumptions!
only demonstrates that they've been calibrated against each other
You are wrong. Do your own research I have more interesting things to do today and I have lost patience explaining things to wilfully ignorant intellectually lazy people.
Do your own research
I've been banging that drum for ages Cofty. It's nice to help those new members who soak up information after being mentally freed from the cult but idiots who refuse to accept reason or make any effort to investigate the facts quickly wear me out.
I want to help those who want to be helped and by the same token I'm willing to adjust my own views in the face of anyone else's compelling argument.
Wow another brick pretending to have valid arguments.
When scientists make mistakes or deliberately feed misinformation, it never stays that way. Science is not about people or their prejudices. Science does not doggedly stick to a theory after it has been disproved - theories are disproved by others in search of the same or similar answers, those mistakes are proven by other scientists. The fact that mistakes were made does not magically become evident to us.
Science consists of a diverse field of experts all bouncing hypothesis, theory and fact off each other in order to further their understanding - period. Proving hundreds of scientists made scientific errors does not disqualify science as a ligitimate means of solving problems, finding answers or establishing fact. Science has nothing to do with trying prove itself for its unanimous acceptance by people. Either you accept the knowledge it provides or you do not. Either you trust science as a FIELD dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding or you do not - simple as that.
If a seat belt malfuntioned for several people despite them being globally accepted as life savers, would you refuse to wear sealt belts even after those malfunctions were corrected?
Syd:That the methods verify each other only demonstrates that they've been calibrated against each other. Or that they've chosen fudge factors that agree with other fudge factors.
That's not exactly how scientific proofs come into existence and why they are widely held as being true. Take for example the Fermat's Last theorem. All laid out in the link. This is how the scientific process works. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastTheorem.html The dating techniques outlined by others here work the same way.and are open to refinement to proof or open to be discredited not on a whim or someones say so or for financial gain but based on proof.
I first read about Fermat when I was a child and I was and still am fascinated by him. The only assumptions we now have are weather or not he really had the proof to begin with and just didn't have the room to write it down at the time. As far as scientific proofs go you will get just as much adulation and praiseworthy esteem heaped on you if you can prove one of science's key precepts is false as you will get if you can corroborate one as being true. Read over the link and think about it. That's all I ask.
