How sure are you of your belief/non-belief in a god?

[TheDon]

And just something else I'd like to throw out there:

Placing all your eggs in the basket that believes the theory of evolution, carbon dating et al, is really no smarter than putting all your eggs in to the God and religion basket. Because really what is science besides a lot of theories backed up by theories.

[ClaretMahoney]

I'm not gonna be convinced either way mjmooney. It's really pointless, just really REALLY REALLY POINTLESS

There's no use arguing it with me cause I just don't care either way, shame that the fuckheads that lean towards religion kill eachother because of it though, they should just be like the evolutionists and bang on about it at their keyboards!

[Chindie]

Sorry Chindie but for me the evolution theory versus God theory just doesn't really matter as no one knows the complete truth.

If you're satisfied with that you betray your own intelligence. I'd sooner believe something with some backing of proof than something that has none.

Besides which, evolution is effectively fact now with evidence backing the divergence of apes and humans at a DNA level.

[ClaretMahoney]

Okay I knew I'd get a rise out of a few of you about this.

Let's say I pick up a rock and say it is 5000 years old, I have to give a theory as to why and prove it, right? Same as a scientist that picks up a rock with a fossil in it, but since there is no precedent, how can any theory of carbon dating or anything really explain anything? You see what I'm saying??

Hate to play devil's advocate but in my mind, and I'm afraid I'm not so good putting it into words, there can't be any explanation, unless going back in time was a possibility.

[mjmooney]

[TheDon]

Okay I knew I'd get a rise out of a few of you about this.

Let's say I pick up a rock and say it is 5000 years old, I have to give a theory as to why and prove it, right? Same as a scientist that picks up a rock with a fossil in it, but since there is no precedent, how can any theory of carbon dating or anything really explain anything? You see what I'm saying??

Hate to play devil's advocate but in my mind, and I'm afraid I'm not so good putting it into words, there can't be any explanation, unless going back in time was a possibility.

We KNOW the rate of carbon decay.

We KNOW the amount of carbon that should be present in something.

Ergo, we can estimate with a pretty good precision how long it has taken that amount of decay to occur.

It's only creationists that claim carbon dating is a circular flawed argument, because, get this, they're dumb and don't understand it!

[ClaretMahoney]

Well way to put words into my mouth mooney, I don't believe either, creationists evolutionists. I'm really just apathetic to it all, and a septic, I mean skeptic, at heart.

[Chindie]

Okay I knew I'd get a rise out of a few of you about this.

Let's say I pick up a rock and say it is 5000 years old, I have to give a theory as to why and prove it, right? Same as a scientist that picks up a rock with a fossil in it, but since there is no precedent, how can any theory of carbon dating or anything really explain anything? You see what I'm saying??

Hate to play devil's advocate but in my mind, and I'm afraid I'm not so good putting it into words, there can't be any explanation, unless going back in time was a possibility.

Your first line means I#m pained to reply, since you're apparently verging on trolling from what that says.

Still, you don't understand what carbon dating is. Theres your problem. Carbon dating, very simply, involves the decay of certain isotopes of carbon. This means that the isotope changes over time, and we know the time that change takes, and thus we can look at how far decayed the isotope is and thus say how old, roughly, the surrounding material must be.

There you go, thats how we can tell how old something is, roughly (it can't get exact years, quite). It can't be perfect but we get reasonably accurate accounts from it.

Which is considerably different to pointing at a rock and saying thats 5000 years old, that is.

[mjmooney]

We're back to Lapal's solipsism again. Nothing is provable, the word of the ignorant has equal value to the word of the intelligent.

Just one point. Every day, every single one of us depends on science being right. The computer you are using right now takes advantage of quantum theory. The medicines that keep you alive are the results of the labour of the biomedical scientists. Physicists made possible your car, your fridge, your TV.

But no. Apparently they REALLY know no more than the Reverend Joe Soap, celebrated tele-evangelist.

Give me a break.

[TheDon]

I mean skeptic, at heart.

You can't be a skeptic if you say you're a skeptic, you should be skeptical about your skepticism!

[ClaretMahoney]

Okay I knew I'd get a rise out of a few of you about this.

Let's say I pick up a rock and say it is 5000 years old, I have to give a theory as to why and prove it, right? Same as a scientist that picks up a rock with a fossil in it, but since there is no precedent, how can any theory of carbon dating or anything really explain anything? You see what I'm saying??

Hate to play devil's advocate but in my mind, and I'm afraid I'm not so good putting it into words, there can't be any explanation, unless going back in time was a possibility.

We KNOW the rate of carbon decay.

We KNOW the amount of carbon that should be present in something.

Ergo, we can estimate with a pretty good precision how long it has taken that amount of decay to occur.

It's only creationists that claim carbon dating is a circular flawed argument, because, get this, they're dumb and don't understand it!

okay Don

Do you know how to carbon date? Have you done it? Can you explain it first hand?

No? Probably not anyways?

Ergo you reading about it is really no different than the twits that read the bible and believe it word for word.

If a rock is a million years old, how can we be 100% certain it is?

[Chindie]

okay Don

Do you know how to carbon date? Have you done it? Can you explain it first hand?

No? Probably not anyways?

Ergo you reading about it is really no different than the twits that read the bible and believe it word for word.

If a rock is a million years old, how can we be 100% certain it is?

Have you ever jumped out of a window? You might be able to fly. If you haven't done it, you can't possibly know. It might be you who is capable of flight.

Etc etc.

[mjmooney]

Well way to put words into my mouth mooney, I don't believe either, creationists evolutionists. I'm really just apathetic to it all, and a septic, I mean skeptic, at heart.

But you SHOULD care. It matters.

You came on here quite understandably to defend your countrymen against a charge of being dumb. It pains me to say it, because I'm really not trying to insult you - but you're playing into their hands.

This is not an equally weighted choice, like Coke v. Pepsi. It's more like choosing between drinking Coke or liquid sewage, and saying "Meh, it's all brown liquid, so who cares?"

I can understand that it's a subject that you're not interested in, and I can understand your exasperation with the arguments between creationists and evolutionists. If that's the case you're better off ignoring the thread, like I stay out of (say) the boxing thread - not my thing. But what you're doing is like me going in there and saying "Michael J. Fox is equally as good a boxer as Mike Tyson. Nobody can PROVE otherwise".

[TheDon]

Okay I knew I'd get a rise out of a few of you about this.

Let's say I pick up a rock and say it is 5000 years old, I have to give a theory as to why and prove it, right? Same as a scientist that picks up a rock with a fossil in it, but since there is no precedent, how can any theory of carbon dating or anything really explain anything? You see what I'm saying??

Hate to play devil's advocate but in my mind, and I'm afraid I'm not so good putting it into words, there can't be any explanation, unless going back in time was a possibility.

We KNOW the rate of carbon decay.

We KNOW the amount of carbon that should be present in something.

Ergo, we can estimate with a pretty good precision how long it has taken that amount of decay to occur.

It's only creationists that claim carbon dating is a circular flawed argument, because, get this, they're dumb and don't understand it!

okay Don

Do you know how to carbon date? Have you done it? Can you explain it first hand?

No? Probably not anyways?

Ergo you reading about it is really no different than the twits that read the bible and believe it word for word.

If a rock is a million years old, how can we be 100% certain it is?

I know exactly how to carbon date, I just told you, you measure the levels of C14 present in something using an Accelerator mass spectrometer, and work out how long it'd take for that level of decay to occur.

Have I done it? No.

Could I do it if I wanted to? Very much so yes if I could get access to the equipment.

Do I need to? No, because the theory is sound, it makes sense, and it's pretty obvious.

That's the difference between science and religion. Science is testable by ANYONE, anyone can learn how to do something, and do it.

You insult your own intelligence by saying that reading about a scientific process and believing it is the same as believing in the bible. A scientific theory is the only thing allowing you to post messages on here.

[mjmooney]

Do you know how to carbon date? Have you done it? Can you explain it first hand?

No? Probably not anyways?

Ergo you reading about it is really no different than the twits that read the bible and believe it word for word.

Actually, this is a valid point. Much of the deeper side of science is almost impossible for the average joe to understand. So, yes, we DO have to take it on trust to a large extent, so I can see where you're coming from.

BUT. I did enough science at school to understand the scientific method. And it convinced me that it is the right way to go about things, rather than simply asserting the word of some "holy" book.

Of course scientists get things wrong sometimes. Occasionally, they even fake evidence for their own egotistical reasons. But the nature of the scientific community's modus operandi very much keeps this in check - everything is peer-reviewed and exhaustively re-tested before it gets anywhere near being "just a theory".

That is good enough for me to have faith (word chosen carefully there) in the scientific approach - even when I don't understand every last detail myself.

[TheDon]

Actually, this is a valid point. Much of the deeper side of science is almost impossible for the average joe to understand. So, yes, we DO have to take it on trust to a large extent, so I can see where you're coming from.

I dunno, I think with the right reading the average joe can understand just about anything. There's not really anything that makes a scientist more able to understand something than a non-scientist, we all have the same brains. As long as you don't dive too deep too soon and slowly work your way down the more complex subjects one piece at a time they open up quite nicely.

[Chindie]

Indeed - with the time and the desire, more or less any theory or process can be understood by anyone. Coming up with the ideas, different story.

But given the time and the thirst for the knowledge, someone with access to the reading material can learn anything they wish about science from the top to the bottom.

[ClaretMahoney]

At one point in history, science "proved" that the Earth was the center of the universe. That theory was accepted for years and years.

Enough said really.

[Chindie]

At one point in history, science "proved" that the Earth was the center of the universe. That theory was accepted for years and years.

Enough said really.

Did it? I'm genuinely unaware of science proving that.

And indeed if it did... then that just proves that science is working. It takes the evidence it can demonstrate and makes the judgement it can. The day science stops learning is the day science stops existing.

[Brumerican]

At one point in history, science "proved" that the Earth was the center of the universe. That theory was accepted for years and years.

Enough said really.

And at another point in history science "proved" geocentrism to be hogswash. Science is able to hold up its hand and admit error unlike infallible religions.

Re Evolution. The deeper you dig into the earths crust the simpler the fossilized lifeforms become. This is observable and testable. Simple common sense is all you need to see that as the earth gets older lifeforms increased in complexity. Evolution is a fact and a "theory".