Let's not debate creationism in the News thread



  • @Benjamin-Hall said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Dreikin It's not the concept I don't like, it's the implementation. Change over time, great. It's the curlicues that have been required to get these specific organisms to fit the theory. I just keep thinking that there's something else, that we're missing something. Not enough to really care, and if I had to deal with it every day I might care more. Totally not on my list of things that matter to me.

    Darwin himself had serious doubts about his theory. IIRC, he found the lack of "missing link" fossils particularly problematic since they posed huge, inexplicable gaps in the record, but he expected archaeology to quickly ante up and start finding them.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    That's funny, because I could say almost exactly the same thing about "old-earthers". The only difference is that I don't usually try to ridicule them for their beliefs.

    Creationists ridicule themselves.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    That's funny, because I could say almost exactly the same thing about "old-earthers". The only difference is that I don't usually try to ridicule them for their beliefs.
    As for whether it's the most plausible, I suppose that depends on whether one is a theist or atheist. Atheism requires something like the Big Bang and billions of years to try to explain the origins of the universe. Theism can include that narrative (and many do), but a literal understanding of the Biblical narrative posits a young age for the universe (or mixed age, as I noted earlier).

    You seem to be conflating science and atheism. And you are conceding the point when you say "Atheism requires something like the Big Bang and billions of years to try to explain the origins of the universe." You are admitting that, absent a need to date the world at 6000 years, evidence points to the world being about 4.5 billion years old and the universe some 14 billion years old.

    Scientists didn't come up with those number just to be contrarian. They made models to fit what evidence they had, refined them over time, and arrived at our current understanding of the world. Those models gave us all the technology we have today, so clearly even if they're not perfect, they must match reality closely enough for computers, gps devices, antibiotics, and other advanced technology to work. And in time we'll improve them further and create even more advanced technology.

    Creationism does "science" backwards. Science is a mechanism by which you make assumptions, try to disprove them, and build from what you learned. Creationism already "knows everything", and instead tries to fit new evidence to match what they already knew was the result they wanted. This is the critical flaw in it's "methodology". It can't create new knowledge, because new knowledge risks upsetting the status quo and the status quo is the only thing they care about.

    What advancements in science or technology has adhering to a young Earth view enabled? What discoveries were creationist scientists able to make thanks to being creationists, that were blocked off to scientists doing actual science? Take the way they distinguish between "kinds" and "species", how is that a meaningful distinction other than to allow them to fit evidence that can't be ignored any longer into their worldview?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @djls45
    Only just saw that post. It's funny how you complain about being ridiculed minutes after writing a long rant which tries to ridicule Catholics. (Badly, I might add, because half of your arguments are based on accepting the premise of young-earth creationism and taking the scripture literally in the first place. You're arguing in circles.)



  • Religions are always retreating to the point where they can't be shown to be wrong. The Catholics have codified this! And then there are always some fundamentalists who claim the preposterous. :wtf: Noah's Ark? If you can believe that tale, you can believe anything. And that is not an achievement.

    I'll be over here in the camp where stuff works. Here we have an ever expanding understanding of natural phenomena. People are able to independently apply our knowledge to make predictions that not only converge but actually turn out right at a useful rate. We read old history books for enlightenment on how less civilized people lived. (And for pleasure too.)

    For the people who are questioning evolution: Evolution is a force of nature. If you take it away, you kill biology. All of it. Nothing in biology makes any sense until you understand how life develops. Then it's amazing.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election Banned

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    No. Full-stop, no. If you are ignoring a literal universe of evidence in order to justify what an ancient book says happened, you are not a scientist, religious or otherwise. A scientist does not ignore strong evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect.



  • @asdf said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    As for whether it's the most plausible, I suppose that depends on whether one is a theist or atheist.

    I'm a Catholic, so your argument is invalid.

    You missed the rest of what I said. Atheists cannot include young-earth creation as even among the possible explanations, whereas theists can (though many choose not to).

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    but a literal understanding of the Biblical narrative posits a young age for the universe

    First and foremost, taking every single word of the Bible literally is a ridiculous idea due to the many contradictions in the scripture, and the arbitrary selection process during the creation of our "standard" Bible; and also due to the fact that you're probably not reading it in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic.

    Secondly, the part we're talking about here, the description of the creation inside Genesis, contains a few obvious contradictions itself.

    What contradictions would those be?



  • @Kian said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    That's funny, because I could say almost exactly the same thing about "old-earthers". The only difference is that I don't usually try to ridicule them for their beliefs.
    As for whether it's the most plausible, I suppose that depends on whether one is a theist or atheist. Atheism requires something like the Big Bang and billions of years to try to explain the origins of the universe. Theism can include that narrative (and many do), but a literal understanding of the Biblical narrative posits a young age for the universe (or mixed age, as I noted earlier).

    You seem to be conflating science and atheism. And you are conceding the point when you say "Atheism requires something like the Big Bang and billions of years to try to explain the origins of the universe." You are admitting that, absent a need to date the world at 6000 years, evidence points to the world being about 4.5 billion years old and the universe some 14 billion years old.

    No, I'm not conceding anything. I'm pointing out that an atheistic worldview requires interpreting the data as supporting billions of years, because that's the only mechanism their worldview allows, but a theistic worldview can take the same data and interpret it within a 6,000-year timeframe.

    Scientists didn't come up with those number just to be contrarian. They made models to fit what evidence they had, refined them over time, and arrived at our current understanding of the world. Those models gave us all the technology we have today, so clearly even if they're not perfect, they must match reality closely enough for computers, gps devices, antibiotics, and other advanced technology to work. And in time we'll improve them further and create even more advanced technology.
    ...
    What advancements in science or technology has adhering to a young Earth view enabled? What discoveries were creationist scientists able to make thanks to being creationists, that were blocked off to scientists doing actual science? Take the way they distinguish between "kinds" and "species", how is that a meaningful distinction other than to allow them to fit evidence that can't be ignored any longer into their worldview?

    What advancements has a view of an old earth produced? When has a belief in billions of years affected what discoveries people have made? People can "science goodly" ( :P ) regardless of their ideas on the age of the earth.

    Creationism does "science" backwards. Science is a mechanism by which you make assumptions, try to disprove them, and build from what you learned. Creationism already "knows everything", and instead tries to fit new evidence to match what they already knew was the result they wanted. This is the critical flaw in it's "methodology". It can't create new knowledge, because new knowledge risks upsetting the status quo and the status quo is the only thing they care about.

    You're comparing apples and oranges. Creationists and evolutionists can both use science. Science is a tool that can be wielded by both. Creationism and evolutionism (or old-earth-ism) are both worldviews that color how adherents to both interpret the data that they find through science. Evolutionism also takes data and tries to fit it into its pre-existing framework.

    Conflating a model or an interpretation with the science used to fill that model or interpretation with data is a problem that is common to both evolutionists and CAGW's.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    No, I'm not conceding anything. I'm pointing out that an atheistic worldview requires interpreting the data as supporting billions of years, because that's the only mechanism their worldview allows, but a theistic worldview can take the same data and interpret it within a 6,000-

    You're once again putting the cart before the horse. Not surprising, given your gullibility.

    The atheistic worldview does not require anything. Unlike religion, atheism does not have commandments or You-Must-Believe-In-This-Stuff-Or-You're-Damned-To-Hell.

    If anything this thread shows your complete ignorance how other worldviews work. It also shows your complete inability to take a viewpoint other than your own.

    If the actual real-world data showed an age of 6,000 years then an atheist would have no problems with that.

    However, there's no such real-world data.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    an atheistic worldview requires interpreting the data as supporting billions of years, because that's the only mechanism their worldview allows

    Exactly, one where you only know what the evidence suggests. Where you do science without bias.

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What advancements has a view of an old earth produced? When has a belief in billions of years affected what discoveries people have made? People can "science goodly" ( ) regardless of their ideas on the age of the earth.

    Pretty much all of biology requires an old earth, since the idea that nearly all life comes from a common source is fundamental to our understanding of DNA, genes, and such. If you were to partition genetic analysis by "kinds", you'd limit what you can learn from one "kind" and apply to another.

    The geology required to extract oil from buried deposits also requires an old earth approach, since knowing where, how and why the deposits are where they are relies on modelling processes that are understood to have taken millions of years.

    Your gps device requires that general relativity work, which rules over our understanding of cosmology, which implies an universe that is billions of years old. If the universe isn't billions of years old, we'd need to patch general relativity significantly, but then your phone shouldn't be able to report your position accurately.

    I could keep going, but anyway, I expect your reply would be that "none of those require an old-earth", and that you can use that science while adhering to a young earth view. But that is the problem with Creationism. Creationism waits for non-Creationists to make advances, then tries to justify those advances within their framework. It is forever playing catch up. They don't produce new knowledge, they just try to classify what's already there and justify why it doesn't really disprove them.

    Evolutionism also takes data and tries to fit it into its pre-existing framework.

    No, here you betray a misunderstanding of how science works. Science does the opposite of trying to fit evidence into a framework. When done properly (scientists can also be hacks), you propose a model or hypothesis, determine what should happen if your model is wrong, and try to test that. If you fail to find evidence for your model being wrong, it adds to the support for it being right. If you uncover evidence indicating your model is wrong, you refine the model and try again, maybe even scrap it entirely. Some of our understanding of light, for example, came about from trying to determine the qualities of the "luminiferous ether", the proposed medium through which light ought to move through to display the qualities it has. No experiment ever managed to succeed in not disproving it though, so it was eventually discarded. That's the core of doing science.

    Creationism fails at doing science because the question "what evidence would prove me wrong?" is never asked, much less tested.


  • :belt_onion:

    @asdf said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    I'm a Catholic, so your argument is invalid.

    HYPOCRITE!


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @sloosecannon said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @asdf said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    I'm a Catholic, so your argument is invalid.

    HYPOCRITE!

    Nah, I'm not gonna bite…



  • Have we gotten to the argument about how the craters on the moon were caused by the Earth's crust "falling" onto a magic layer of water between it and the mantle? I need to go prep my 'Divine Falcon Punch!' GIFs...




  • :belt_onion:

    @MathNerdCNU said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    Have we gotten to the argument about how the craters on the moon were caused by the Earth's crust "falling" onto a magic layer of water between it and the mantle? I need to go prep my 'Divine Falcon Punch!' GIFs...

    Reading that caused a segmentation fault.
    Ow.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.



  • @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.



  • @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.

    You should see the suckers that ended up in the windows port of the universe, though. Some guy cobbled together some stubs to make it compile, and now if too many things happen in close proximity, the whole thing crashes. Takes ages to come back online too after a reboot -since recently- with that Creators Update (re-)applying and failing.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    an atheistic worldview requires interpreting the data as supporting billions of years, because that's the only mechanism their worldview allows

    The worldview of looking at facts and trying to find a model to explain them requires billions of years. Is that because the only models that support all the known facts require billions of years?

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    a theistic worldview can take the same data and interpret it within a 6,000-year timeframe

    A worldview that doesn't require proof for its assertions can interpret data however it wants. This is not a plus point for your theist views


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    No. Full-stop, no. If you are ignoring a literal universe of evidence in order to justify what an ancient book says happened, you are not a scientist, religious or otherwise. A scientist does not ignore strong evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect.

    As @flabdablet might say if he were around: When @Fox and I are in violent agreement on an issue, you can probably take it as the stone cold truth.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What advancements has a view of an old earth produced? When has a belief in billions of years affected what discoveries people have made?

    Telescopes and the ability to see farther than 6,000 light years away.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.

    Did he use Git? That would explain platypuses.



  • @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.

    Did he use Git? That would explain platypuses.

    Are you saying platypuses are the merge conflicts of the animal kingdom?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.

    Did he use Git? That would explain platypuses.

    Are you saying platypuses are the merge conflicts of the animal kingdom?

    Fuck it, it's Friday, deploy to production.



  • @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.

    Did he use Git? That would explain platypuses.

    Are you saying platypuses are the merge conflicts of the animal kingdom?

    Fuck it, it's Friday, deploy to production.

    I've heard that it was a case of botched autocompletion.


  • BINNED

    @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    botched autocompletion.

    It was Accalia all along!



  • @Luhmann said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    botched autocompletion.

    It was Accalia all along!

    So, @accalia , what do you have to say for yourself, Old Lady?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Luhmann said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    botched autocompletion.

    It was Accalia all along!

    So, @accalia , what do you have to say for yourself, Old Lady?

    We'll clean it up on the next sprint, it works for now.


  • FoxDev

    @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Luhmann said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    botched autocompletion.

    It was Accalia all along!

    So, @accalia , what do you have to say for yourself, Old Lady?

    Kyon? 😕‍🦊


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @remi said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    So whether scientific models are "the final truth" is something that science doesn't really care about and believing that there is a God behind all that is not contrary to science.

    I would say that it does care about whether a model is the final truth, in that it should always be assumed that the model can and should be improved, and that we should be on the lookout for opportunities to do so.

    That's not really disagreeing what you were saying, of course, but I think it's worth making that elaboration.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @RaceProUK said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @RaceProUK said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    Which, let's be honest, is vague enough to disregard it as proof π == 3.

    I think it's quite clear that the person who wrote that passage thought pi equals three. Not that that has any bearing on the actual value of pi, but still.

    And let's not forget that the original passage was written before the invention of the decimal point and the discovery of irrational and transcendental numbers.

    Not to mention the letter pi!


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Benjamin-Hall said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    the truly wacky (but harmless).

    False. They are attempting to spread their insanity and thereby undermine reason in general.

    So sayeth the pot!


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @remi said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    I'm not going to say "your point of view is valid but...", I'm going to say "you are wrong and (hopefully!) I can prove it".

    But you said ridicule, which would be more like:

    "You are an idiot and I can prove it!"

    I think you are smart enough to know how well that is going to work out.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    One problem with this interpretation of the Biblical narrative is that it puts the creation of the sun, moon, and stars after the creation of plant life.

    So you're saying God can create the sun and moon after plant life, but he can't sustain plant life for years without a sun and moon?

    To me the most likely case is that either the bible is ambiguous about creation, or our ability to date things is inaccurate after a certain point.

    I mean, Genesis is God trying to explain to uneducated slaves what happened a few 1000 years ago in a way they'll accept. In Job, God doesn't even bother and basically says, "Where were you when I did a bunch of stuff?" Stuff which is all metaphorical about creation, unless you know where the Earth's foundation is?

    To suggest that we know exactly how things started, whether we use observable data, or an account from Genesis, is silly to me.



  • Why would Genesis be more likely to be true than Hesiod's Theogony?



  • @owatson said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    Why would Genesis be more likely to be true than Hesiod's Theogony?

    Why would anything be more likely to be true?

    This very moment I could be an AI that just booted up in a virtual reality with even my memories of the start of the sentence being implanted.

    If we're even one artificial reality removed from the reality mentioned in any book, then any of it is possibly true.

    Philosophies, even religions, have their own context, and it's not worth mixing them.


  • :belt_onion:

    @xaade said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    This very moment I could be an AI that just booted up in a virtual reality with even my memories of the start of the sentence being implanted.

    That explains so much about every @xaade-post, including the rest of that one


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    This very moment I could be an AI that just booted up in a virtual reality with even my memories of the start of the sentence being implanted.

    That's the essence of Last Thursdayism. We choose to believe that the world is not just some elaborate charade, that it can be studied and meaningfully learned from, and that our lives can have the meanings that we create ourselves. We don't know that these choices are true, but the opposite leads to a profound nihilism that I really do wish to reject; I want the world to exist other than for purely my benefit, I want the world to be reasonably predictable, and I want freedom of action (subject to the ensuing consequences).

    Those are (some of) my axioms, and I think they're reasonable ones. You might have others.



  • @dkf said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    leads to a profound nihilism

    Well, yeah.

    @dkf said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    We choose to believe that the world is not just some elaborate charade,

    It would completely confuse our survival instinct for starters. We NEED the world to be consistent, whether it is or isn't.

    Besides, the point is that we CAN'T know. We can only use the information we have and make the best educated guess, assuming that everything we observed is part of a consistent universe that isn't purposefully playing tricks on us.



  • @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    I've heard that it was a case of botched autocompletion.

    No no no no. It was a classic case of communication error. Everyone did legs and no-one did wings, the the person doing the bill was working to a different scale than the people responsible for the body. it was supposed to be a duck.



  • @MZH said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 I'm assigning you homework.

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    The primary issue I have with radiometric dating methods is that they require an assumption that all of the daughter elements are results of the parent element. I.e. the lead in a sample containing both lead and uranium is assumed to have all originally been uranium. The problem with that is that we actually don't know what the composition of the original sample was, and we don't know whether it has gained or lost any of either element in the intervening time.

    Find out if scientists make this assumption or if they know about the problem. Then, if they do know about the problem, find out what they do about it. Report back what you find.

    Another issue is that they don't work on small scales (anything less than a few thousand years). Samples from a currently living creature have been variously dated as a few decades old, a few thousand years old, some dozens of thousands of years old, or a couple millions of years old.

    Find the journal articles where these results were published. Then find the journal articles that cite that article as a reference and see what those scientists did about the problem. Report back what you find.

    You mean the use of isochrons? An isochron is a line chart that plots an equation with parameters for the age of the sample (desired data point to be solved), the number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample (known by direct measurement), the number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition (guessed by assuming equilibrium of the daughter isotope and non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter element in the original sample at the time of formation or thermal closure), the number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at the present (known by direct measurement), and the decay constant of the parent isotope (the inverse of the half-life of the parent isotope) (known value) times the natural log of 2.

    The problem is in the assumptions. The assumption of equilibrium is not necessarily a good one, since the conditions at the time of formation are not known, nor is it known whether the sample may have been contaminated between then and now by either addition or loss of parent or daughter materials (or others that might possibly be used for determining equilibrium ratios). No single equation can be solved for a single solution if there are at least two unknown variables.

    If all of the daughter isotope is assumed to have come from the parent element, then the resulting calculation would be the maximum possible age since the last thermal closure. Assuming some of the daughter isotope originally existed in the sample in some ratio with the parent element and/or a non-radiogenic isotope reduces that maximum. This assumes that the sample is igneous; other types of rock are eroded in some way, which makes the assumptions clearly invalid, since breaking pieces off of the sample will change the ratios of matter composing the rock.

    But even igneous rock has its own similar issues. A sample of melted igneous rock can partially crystallize as it cools slowly, which can solidify one element, but still be above the melting temperature of another element, which would then be able to be "washed" away by the surrounding flow or by density sorting. If either of these are the parent or daughter or non-radiogenic isotope used in the radiometric dating/calibration, then the ratio will not match the assumption and the calculated maximum date will be invalid.

    There's really no way around the fact that the original composition has to be assumed, and that assumption invalidates the results.

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    If the gravity well/time distortion thing I mentioned earlier is true, then the rest of the universe could be several billion years old, from our perspective here on earth. If not, then it's the same age as the earth.

    Find out what kind of gravity would produce a time dilation resulting in a 6,000-year-old Earth and a 14-billion-year-old universe. Think about if Earth could survive in such an environment. Report back what you find.

    It seems that it doesn't necessarily depend on the strength of the gravitational field. Special relativity says that something moving at speeds nearing the speed of light is subject to a distortion of time such that a clock with such a traveler will tick more slowly than the clock with a distant observer. But if the thing moving is itself light (and thus moving at the speed of light), and it is towards the observer, then time dilation theoretically could cause hugely distant things to appear to be vastly older than the observer.

    I don't know (and probably wouldn't fully understand) all the math involved, so I can't make a solid claim one way or the other. I just think it's an interesting thing to consider.


  • Considered Harmful

    @djls45 goddamnit @fbls45



  • @pie_flavor said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 goddamnit @fbls45

    It's the "extra credit" that @MZH asked for in this post.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    If all of the daughter isotope is assumed to have come from the parent element, then the resulting calculation would be the maximum possible age since the last thermal closure. Assuming some of the daughter isotope originally existed in the sample in some ratio with the parent element and/or a non-radiogenic isotope reduces that maximum.

    This assumes that the sample is igneous; other types of rock are eroded in some way, which makes the assumptions clearly invalid, since breaking pieces off of the sample will change the ratios of matter composing the rock.

    Radioactive datation on most sedimentary rocks is tricky anyway, because they are made of reused material and the age you'll get is not the depositional age. But that's not the point here, you can still perfectly well look at individual minerals in the rock.

    Nonetheless, while your first assertion is fine, the second one is not at all. The breaking up of rocks by mechanical erosion doesn't change the chemical composition of the minerals. And when there are some chemical changes going on, then, well, the chemical composition change means the actual minerals change, which is fairly easy to see as well. So there is no issue about knowing whether the material that you are examining has been modified since closure of the chemical system.

    Unless you're assuming some form of "erosion" that actually changes the amount of one specific (daughter) element, while leaving the rest of the chemical balance of the mineral unchanged (including the amount of parent element). But you'll have to first point me to such a process, then show me that this process is not accounted for in datation.

    But even igneous rock has its own similar issues. A sample of melted igneous rock can partially crystallize as it cools slowly

    Yes, partial crystallization is a core process in the formation of the Earth crust. Congratulations on discovering one of the basic processes of geology. There is a trivial answer to that problem, which you would know if you had read about anything on actual datation studies. It's even mentioned in most press releases about geological datation, so you don't need to be an expert to have heard about it. Try to find out what are the actual samples on which datation is done (hint: I've actually given you the answer above).

    There's really no way around the fact that the original composition has to be assumed, and that assumption invalidates the results.

    True, but for one thing you haven't until now shown anything that really causes any reason to reject our current assumptions.

    There are also (at least) two other arguments for it, that are again basic geology principles. Why would the original composition be different from similar original compositions that we see nowadays? And if the original composition was wrong in one given sample, what is the likelihood that all original compositions would be wrong in all samples above and below and next to it, in such a way that the "wrong" ages paint a consistent global picture (and that the age obtained by totally different chemical elements are consistent)?



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    It seems that it doesn't necessarily depend on the strength of the gravitational field. Special relativity says that something moving at speeds nearing the speed of light is subject to a distortion of time such that a clock with such a traveler will tick more slowly than the clock with a distant observer. But if the thing moving is itself light (and thus moving at the speed of light), and it is towards the observer, then time dilation theoretically could cause hugely distant things to appear to be vastly older than the observer.

    I don't know (and probably wouldn't fully understand) all the math involved, so I can't make a solid claim one way or the other. I just think it's an interesting thing to consider.

    No, the clock for both will tick at the same rate for each within their specific reference frame. I know what you meant but with something like relativity you have to be very specific about which reference frame you're talking about at the moment.

    And you got the bit about light dead wrong.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    You mean the use of isochrons?

    No, I didn't have any particular thing in mind, since I've never studied radioactive dating techniques in any great depth. At the time I wrote my homework assignment post, I had spent many hours in research and was starting another long-winded post when I thought, "Why am I doing all this work when there's about zero chance of it making any difference?"

    This is why I attempted to get you to do your own research: to see if you care enough to find out what scientists actually do in the lab and if any of your accusations of over-assuming are true.

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    ...guessed ... assuming ... assumptions ... assumption ... assumed ... Assuming ... assumes ... assumptions ... assumed ... and that assumption invalidates the results.

    Obviously not. You seem to think that scientists only use the most naive procedures with the most naive assumptions and put no thought into complications.

    Here's a link to a chapter from a textbook on uranium-thorium-lead geochronology (the kind used to date the oldest rocks): https://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/people/schoene/pdf/4_10_Schoene_UThPb_geochronology.pdf

    There's are two entire sections on errors from measurements (4.10.3 and 4.10.5). For example:

    4.10.5.2 Isotopic Composition of Natural U

    The U-238/U-235 of natural uranium in most terrestrial materials has been assumed to be constant and equal to 137.88 for 30 years. This value was adopted by Steiger and Jäger (1977), citing measurements from Cowan and Adler (1976) from a variety of uranium ore deposits. Recently, deviation of U-238/U-235U = 137.88 of up to ~1% has been observed in low-temperature environments and crustal rocks, which may be the result of temperature-dependent mass fractionation, kinetic effects, or redox-sensitive partitioning (Bopp et al., 2009; Brennecka et al., 2011; Stirling et al., 2007; Weyer et al., 2008). Excess U-235, measured in refractory inclusions in chondritic meteorites, has been attributed to decay of the short-lived nuclide Cm-247 in the early solar system (Brennecka et al., 2010).

    Now, before you jump on the word "assumed" in the first sentence, notice that (1) the assumption is not hidden and (2) this value is assumed because of many previous measurements. But, that doesn't mean that these assumptions aren't rechecked and checked in different environments (including meteorites), as the paragraph goes on to say. There are other sections for decay constants, standard calibrations, and the loss or gain of daughter atoms. In a well-established field like geochronology (the introduction to this chapter mentions that 2011 is the hundredth anniversary of the first paper in the field), every step of every technique is justified by previous measurements and studies.

    As an example of how much work goes into these techniques, here's a 500-page treatise (cited by the textbook chapter) just on zircon and why it is used for this kind of radioactive dating.

    This is a complex field with complex techniques. Every step and every calculation is justified by previous measurements and studies. Plus, all of this is publicly disclosed. You cannot simply dismiss everything by saying, "They have to assume X, Y, and Z," or "This won't work for <simple reason>," if you want to be taken seriously. You don't even bother to attempt to gauge how big the error is or how much of a difference the error would make, instead pretending that absolutely no information can be gained from the study of these rocks.

    When I read what you write about scientific work you disagree with, I can only conclude that you hold one of two opinions about the scientists:

    1. They are all idiots who have no idea what they're doing.
    2. They are part of a conspiracy to fabricate data.

    This leads me to conclude that it's pointless to bring up scientific data in these discussions, as it will be rejected for made-up reasons.



  • I always imagine the "about a year later" bar as all the members involved in the topic go on with their lives, various things happen and after some newfound knowledge come back with different opinions.

    On the subject of Carbon dating, different types of rocks and finding their ages, I wish there was a whole book written just on that topic. An extremely interesting topic that I would love to learn about.



  • @mzh said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    When I read what you write about scientific work you disagree with, I can only conclude that you hold one of two opinions about the scientists:

    1. They are all idiots who have no idea what they're doing.
    2. They are part of a conspiracy to fabricate data.

    This leads me to conclude that it's pointless to bring up scientific data in these discussions, as it will be rejected for made-up reasons.

    There's also this argument trotted out where someone points at a paradigm shift like Einstein's Theory of Relativity or similar and then tries to use those as an example where scientists were wrong. They usually kind of overlook that those shifts came from within the scientific community and were not done by laymen. I.e. if you haven't intensively studied the matter subject for years then you most likely are simply retreading things which others with more knowledge have already considered and dismissed.


  • Considered Harmful

    @rhywden The other thing is that incorrectness is allowed to be proven in the scientific community. Truth is arrived at through rigorous peer-checking, not by cultlike worship of what some book says.



  • @pie_flavor said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @rhywden The other thing is that incorrectness is allowed to be proven in the scientific community. Truth is arrived at through rigorous peer-checking, not by cultlike worship of what some book says.

    Having been a scientist, the one thing you are here is just plain wrong. OK, in science it's not one book. Each group has their pet method that they're convinced against all evidence is the one and only true way of doing <task X> and will apply that method, no matter how inappropriate the assumptions, to each and every task.

    Peer review is often more about reinforcing the world-view of the reviewers (checking for heterodoxy) than about truth. Frankly, most peer review sucks. It focuses on the trivial and ignores the larger issues.

    Basically, a large part of science today is totally worthless. And a lot of what calls itself science just plain isn't.

    We make a fundamental mistake when we hold science up as some holy process that has a unique path to truth or a guaranteed path to truth. Science doesn't care about truth. It cares about useful predictions. There's a big difference.