earth to Mark....science very rarely admits its wrong....about anything. Scientists don't like showing up their comrads.....it's a little game they play: "I won't step on your toes if you don't step on mine." And your little challenge, the way it is worded, is virtually impossible to beat because the way science generally dates rocks is by the fossils they find in them. Therefore, there is almost no way to prove circular reasoning because re-dating a fossil has nothing to do with the dating of the rock -- it's all about assumptions made on the date of the fossil. I'm sure fossils are redated all the time -- but it's not because the rock changed or that they misdated the rock because of the rock it was in ------ they just simply re-date the fossil whenever they want, plain and simple.
38 comments
Scientists love being the one to find the proof that a widely accepted theory is wrong. There's nothing that will make you famous faster.
The "dating methods" you're describing are used by creationists.
The average scientist finds accepted theory to be a challenge. If they can disprove it, it's their name in the textbooks. Why would any scientist NOT want to challenge it? The fussy part is, however, is that it MUST STAND UP TO RIGOROUS TESTING AND PROVIDE CONCRETE PROOF! The bible says so is not proof. I can write in a book that we fell from the heavens in pods. That doesn't make it so.
Amazingly, if science discovers it has errored it makes every effort to correct the error. Just like religion, eh, Supersport?
Scientists don't like showing up their comrads.
This is nonsense. Scientists are egotists. They always think they're smarter than their fellow scientists, especially scientists from another country. There's nothing they'd like better than to "show up" their comrades. In fact, that's what wins Nobel Prizes and the research grants that pay their salaries.
Over the centuries, scientists have redated the layer of rocks. But they haven't changed the order of the layers since they were established by creationists in the 18th century. The Jurassic always came after the Triassic, even when they didn't know exactly what years these two times represented. So you can come up with stupid arguments that the Jurassic was 5,000 years ago and the Triassic was 6,000 years ago by asking hypothetical ad-hoc questions about radiometric dating, but you can't claim that fossils in the Jurassic and Triassic were both laid down at the same time by Noah's Flood.
I can tell that you both aren't a scientist and have never known any real scientists.
Maybe idiot "creation scientists" operate that way, but no one else. Of course, you're willing to give them a free pass since they're working to "prove" something you already believe, right?
science very rarely admits its wrong....about anything
Scientists don't like showing up their comrads
the way science generally dates rocks is by the fossils they find in them.
re-dating a fossil has nothing to do with the dating of the rock
they just simply re-date the fossil whenever they want, plain and simple
It's nice to have you back, Supersport.
I laughed so hard reading this I almost shit my pants (which happens a lot with stuporsports posts).
The fastest way to earn gov't or private funding as a scientist is to present evidence that shows your predecessor or rivals was wrong. the second fastest is to make a new discovery before your rivals do. Of course you get prestige in your field when you accomplish either of those which means you get to ask for even more money from an employer.
you would have to be a flipping idiot to cover up proof like that.
What's with the lumping of the communists with the scientists? I mean, I'm all for socialism and science, but, why connect the two?
And, yeah. Carbon dating says you're wrong.
This is the guy who questioned gravity, no?
Is there a discrepancy?
Order another million data sets. Employ the experts! Observe and test and verify. Analyze the discrepancy for a cause. Learn from error. Expect refinement. Science is supposed to work this way.
Science is not supernatural or political or an opinion poll or a popularity contest or a blatant rectal extraction.
We admit we were wrong whenever we screw up.
Gentlemen, I'd like you to meet my two good friends, String Theory and the Luminiferuous Aether. I'm sorry Perpetual Motion couldn't make it, he, uh... He's not with us anymore.
science very rarely admits its wrong....about anything.
Oh yeah, bring on the phrenology head
Scientists don't like showing up their comrads.....it's a little game they play: "I won't step on your toes if you don't step on mine."
Or they could be agreeing because the same experiments produce the same results?
And your little challenge, the way it is worded, is virtually impossible to beat because the way science generally dates rocks is by the fossils they find in them.
Radioisotope dating?
Therefore, there is almost no way to prove circular reasoning because re-dating a fossil has nothing to do with the dating of the rock -- it's all about assumptions made on the date of the fossil. I'm sure fossils are redated all the time -- but it's not because the rock changed or that they misdated the rock because of the rock it was in ------ they just simply re-date the fossil whenever they want, plain and simple."
No, it's because the results have been altered by his noodly appendage.
I think there might be some confusion because of the concept of "index fossils" (those remains that are common and widespread in different strata). The rocks and fossils do correlate, but were (and still are) used for relative dating (the order of strata) not absolute dating (the actual number of years). Also,the original stratagraphic system (thst our modern one is a refinement of) was created and codified by basically creationist researchers before Darwin's Origin of Species.(I actually have a copy of one of those offical charts that dates from 1841--18 years before!)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
