The reason for Old Age ing wt failures (see today's wt "study") compared to the excellent evolving science dating results is, that scientists study the real thing, what can be authentically called nature or creation, the works, whereas wt studies an old book written by people that looked, but had no clue yet how things worked. So, we are truly in the Golden Age awake!
The Old Age
by Caupon 81 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Saintbertholdt
One_day,
If religion has disappointed you, science will too. Unfortunately it has promoted itself as honest disciplined searchers of truth.
No no nonoononononono One_day
Let me illustrate the difference between Science and Religion:
-
Diogenesister
Scientists are no more honest or dishonest than the general population.
Perhaps when it comes to telling a porkie about who took the last slice of cake or the size of their....last fishing catch, yes. But any scientist that 'lied' or was 'dishonest'in a published scientfic paper would not only risk his whole career & get found out pretty darn fast he would have to fabricate all the science on which his paper was based.
The expression 'to stand on the shoulders of giants'is not meaningless hyperbole.
All scientific work is not a bolt out of the blue. It is like layers of an onion. Each conslusion reached is only possible because of the solid, evidence based research previously undertaken by others . For the OP to be correct this would have to be similarly flawed by "dishonest scientists"to even make sense and so on all the way back to Newton until the whole ediface came tumbling down. That idea is simply absurd.
With regard to what I think you're referring to, the dating of archeological or fossil remains (as fink posted )in order to be as acurate as possible many methods of dating are used. Where these methods converge an acurate date can established.
Watchtower uses dated and skewed criticism of one particular method, the Carbon 14. This method has been further refined and in any case is rarely used on its own.
It always makes me chuckle that should a witness require a body to be dated in a murder investigation, or ancient remains ruled out as a homicide, witnesses'🗽🌃accept the word of scientists without murmer. Such work may even feature in one of their colourless little Awake articles.
The minute a Scientists' findings conflict with their bronze age, repeatedly redacted stories their work becomes worthless and their methodology questionable. This was the point I think Viviane was making previously.
-
Caupon
Okay, wow. I did not expect for this post to be a battle against science. Of course we all realize that without science, there'd be no light, no extra means of travel, etc. Science is one thing that is natural for a human to be involved because we wonder so much about ourselves and everything. But what the op is saying is that despite all the absolute methods to date physical property and objects, is it not still a prediction at the end of the day?
Like what Syd says. All those methods are assumptions when you think about it. Most of you guys here mention that these specific techniques are tested over and over to provide at least logical explanation or calculation. Well, that is very great and assuring. But when we are talking about something that they say is possibly 65 million years old, and I meant million not billion, you cannot test that. It still seems to be a great big throw around for some unknown objective. The latest poster said that many methods are used to determine the date to be as accurate as possible. And that is just what I mean. Its not to be exactly 100% correct because we will never know that but it is supposed to be as accurate as it possibly can. Now I'm not saying all these great ways to figure the time period of these things is wrong. But they can be wrong because they are just methods to determine an estimate to the facts in which we many never know. And there are also so many things we do not yet know.
-
cofty
But when we are talking about something that they say is possibly 65 million years old, ... you cannot test that
Yes you can. You don't understand anything about how it can be proven to be accurate within a relatively small margin of error because you won't study the facts.
Its not to be exactly 100% correct
Nobody has ever said otherwise
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. The earth is approx 4.5 billion years old. Humans evolved from non-human ancestors over millions of years. Modern humans have been around for more than 100 000 years
These are not guesses.
-
truthseeker100
"All those methods are assumptions" is true but so is your very existence but I'll bet you take that assumption as correct. "I think therefore I am" some physicists would question even that assumption! Something that has been repeatedly scrutinized by scientists as the various dating techniques have been is a pretty good bet to rely on.
Edited to add "the perceived results of those measurements are assumptions."
-
cofty
All those methods are assumptions is true
In what way?
-
cofty
Caupon did you bother to read the Wiens article?
If not why not?
-
M*A*S*H
Caupon: Only the religious promise absolute truth. Science can only offer models or theories that best fit the facts. With regards dates far in the past 'the 65 million years' issue, it should be obvious these dates are estimates with a tolerances applied. Now given the science behind how these dates calculated... it seems to me you have only a few possible options available to discount them, for example
- You do not agree with Uniformitarianism
- You believe there is a global scientific conspiracy
- You have made a breakthrough in physics and have a new hypothesis regarding radioactive decay
- You have no understanding of the science and reject it based on personal incredulity
- etc...
So I am curious Caupon, what is your reasoning behind your rejection? If you tell the board we can better understand what the issues are.
-
truthseeker100
Coupon the Wiens Article is a good one. I used the link about Fermat's last theorem as an example of how the scientific process works with a relatively simple problem. There are countless more unsolved mathematical mysteries out there for sure. It was not my intention to make you feel bad or that you were under attack but you did ask for our opinions in your opening post. Thinking or mere words alone will never hurt anyone.
