Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Hakluyt's Voyages.......

570 replies

Hakluyt · 23/10/2014 18:10

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

OP posts:
JassyRadlett · 26/10/2014 07:41

Please don't trouble with 'pointing me in the right direction'. I'm just seeking to determine on what you base your understanding of dating methods.

I'll check out those links now.

JassyRadlett · 26/10/2014 07:53

The first two links are the same case and they are hardly independent reports, they're media reports of one side of a court case. Has there been a judgement?

The third is more complex and interesting. However from reading it at least part of the issue was that the person in question asked not to be involved in work related to evolution when he'd been hired to work on an evolutionary biology project?

Hakluyt · 26/10/2014 07:55

The Armitqge case is ongoing. What was the judgement in the Hahn case? Presumably there is one-the case was brought in 2007.

OP posts:
Hakluyt · 26/10/2014 08:00

Presumably he lost. What with him saying he couldn't do most of his job because of his religious beliefs, despite the terms of his employment being made clear to him at the application stage.

If he had won, t would be all over the creationist websites.

OP posts:
JassyRadlett · 26/10/2014 08:02

It was dismissed for not following due process it seems; he didn't file the lawsuit within the right timeframes after he lost his case with the anti-discrimination commission.

I wouldn't be surprised to lose my job if I refused to do the core part of it but promised to work harder on the other bits to make up for not doing the main part of the job.

Hakluyt · 26/10/2014 08:12

I would like to know of any cases of Christians losing their jobs because of religious discrimination which did not involve them either refusing to do a significant part of their job description or breaking equality legislation.

OP posts:
PickledInAJar · 26/10/2014 09:00

I'm sure you'll find every single one of them will be explained away, after all, isn't that what happens in a court when someone is sued? The two sides present their case and the judge decides on their ruling based on their view of the situation. As I said before, everyone is too scared to swim against the tide when it comes to evolution. Well, almost everyone.

Hakluyt · 26/10/2014 09:05

So are you postulating a massive conspiracy supported by the entire scientific establishment and the judicial system to persecute creationists?

OP posts:
BigDorrit · 26/10/2014 09:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Hakluyt · 26/10/2014 09:24

"the judge decides on their ruling based on their view of the situation."

Actually,the judge bases his ruling on the law........

OP posts:
JassyRadlett · 26/10/2014 10:00

What's in it for the judiciary? What's your theory of why they're scared?

And what's your reasoning for why in much more religious societies (but not theocracies) academic institutions still posit evolution as the best explanation, and why young earth academics in those countries are also apparently terrified to 'speak out? Or does only the English-speaking world count?

VelvetGreen · 26/10/2014 10:07

Pickled. Firstly, those who discovered evidence for an old earth originally were not looking for it or expecting it (they were often looking for evidence of the flood) - they found it anyway. The subsequent crisis of faith by Darwin and Fitzroy for e.g. is well documented. Secondly, this argument makes no sense given that there are any number of scientists who also believe in god and seem to have no trouble with accepting the evidence.

The science bit.

There is no evidence for variable rates of decay.

The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:

The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates. Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly, but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.

Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes. These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for a supernova, which is 169,000 light-years away. Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of another supernova, which is sixty million light-years away, and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away.

The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years. Here's a piece on the Oklo reactor in case you've not heard of it.

Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth. Here's some info on that.

Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records.

The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism.

There is a paper that suggests solar flares may have an effect on radioactive elements news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html. However, even if this proves to be true it does not significantly alter radiometric dates. It is also a good example of scientists being prepared to consider evidence, even when it goes against the received wisdom.

Hakluyt · 26/10/2014 10:11

I think debate rally is at an end when I post "This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” - an extract from a reputable journal, and others suggest that Schweitzer only said that because she was intimidated into it because she was scared of losing her job.

OP posts:
BackOnlyBriefly · 26/10/2014 11:27

the thing is we don't know do we?

PickledInAJar, you know you're arguing that we can't know things unless we were there. You do realise that ends the discussion for god?

Btw most of us here remember the 'BestValue' threads so there'll be nothing surprising on those links. He was rather like one of the posters in this thread. Remarkably like one of the posters in this thread :)

He just ranted and really wished hard for god to be true and thought wishing made it so.

headinhands · 26/10/2014 12:50

Out of interest, are there any non-believers here who are non believers because of evolution? Or Christians because of the creation story in Genesis? If scientists said 'the data is wrong, the earth is much younger' would a non-believer have to then believe in the story in genesis?

Hakluyt · 26/10/2014 12:59

Well, I suppose that if it were somehow proved that the earth really is only 6000 years old we would have to believe in some sort of creator doing it all with a wave of his hand- because there isn't any other way it could have happened!

Unless it was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arklesezure.........

OP posts:
headinhands · 26/10/2014 13:07

So they wouldn't have to believe in Genesis?

PickledInAJar · 26/10/2014 13:45

VelvetGreen, this argument makes no sense given that there are any number of scientists who also believe in god

Some do, but others cherry-pick the part of the bible that fit with their preferred account of how the world began. That’s compromise.

There is no evidence for variable rates of decay. Yes, there is, I mentioned some isotopes that are known to vary. This is accepted because they are not anything to do with evolution proof. There’s a different rule all of a sudden when it’s to do with evolution. Remember, it could go either way. For example, your world view tells you that there ARE some daughter isotopes at the beginning, or your world view tells you that there aren’t. None of us were there so all numbers calculated after this are based on the first assumptions.

Your quote It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. is conveniently full of “maybe’s” and “what-ifs”. You get a lot of that with evolution, and people come along blithely and read in there “it IS most definitely”.

Hakluyt, surely you’ve heard the saying “the law is an ass?” There’s usually a grain of truth in these old sayings. Of course, at times it works really well, but other times it doesn’t. That’s one of the main reasons people cite for being against capital punishment; sometimes the innocent get taken down instead.

I am not that impressed with judges at the moment, because as a landlord I have submitted a case recently to withhold tenancy deposit due to around a thousand ponds of damage, but because the independent inventory company failed to document “the tenant’s were responsible” at every problem, the judge threw the case out. They completely refused to accept the “before and after” information just on that one point. They said it could be something the landlord did and it can’t be assumed to have been the tenant, even though I had no access to the property and it was being fully managed by a letting agent. It is quiet shocking actually.

In my line of work I’ve been involved with recruitment and there are strict guidelines to ensure absolute equality. However I have seen many a time, someone “known” and “preferred” get the job when they are least qualified, and have observed personally some people perform terribly at interview but still get the job. The documentation was always written to reflect and omit all the right bits to make the case, but in reality, if someone impartial had been present, it would be an entirely different outcome. It happens all the time. Likewise, sickness records are used to get rid of staff people find don’t fit the bill for whatever reason. The popular, hard workers, are treated differently. In the same way it is quite possible that someone being sacked has a different reason that we all know is a cover story but a judge would accept.

Jassy, What's your theory of why they're scared? I think most people find it hard to swim against the tide, especially when they would be ridiculed. I don’t get what you’re asking in your second part of that question so would you mind giving me that one again?

Headinhands, would a non-believer have to then believe in the story in genesis? I don’t think they would. They’d follow the notion of aliens first; anything other than God. That says a lot really.

PickledInAJar · 26/10/2014 13:47

VelvetGreen, this argument makes no sense given that there are any number of scientists who also believe in god

Some do, but others cherry-pick the part of the bible that fit with their preferred account of how the world began. That’s compromise.

There is no evidence for variable rates of decay Yes, there is, I mentioned some isotopes that are known to vary. This is accepted because they are not anything to do with evolution proof. There’s a different rule all of a sudden when it’s to do with evolution. Remember, it could go either way. For example, your world view tells you that there ARE some daughter isotopes at the beginning, or your world view tells you that there aren’t. None of us were there so all numbers calculated after this are based on the first assumptions.

Your quote It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. is conveniently full of “maybe’s” and “what-ifs”. You get a lot of that with evolution, and people come along blithely and read in there “it IS most definitely”.

Hakluyt, surely you’ve heard the saying “the law is an ass?” There’s usually a grain of truth in these old sayings. Of course, at times it works really well, but other times it doesn’t. That’s one of the main reasons people cite for being against capital punishment; sometimes the innocent get taken down instead.

I am not that impressed with judges at the moment, because as a landlord I have submitted a case recently to withhold tenancy deposit due to around a thousand ponds of damage, but because the independent inventory company failed to document “the tenant’s were responsible” at every problem, the judge threw the case out. They completely refused to accept the “before and after” information just on that one point. They said it could be something the landlord did and it can’t be assumed to have been the tenant, even though I had no access to the property and it was being fully managed by a letting agent. It is quiet shocking actually.

In my line of work I’ve been involved with recruitment and there are strict guidelines to ensure absolute equality. However I have seen many a time, someone “known” and “preferred” get the job when they are least qualified, and have observed personally some people perform terribly at interview but still get the job. The documentation was always written to reflect and omit all the right bits to make the case, but in reality, if someone impartial had been present, it would be an entirely different outcome. It happens all the time. Likewise, sickness records are used to get rid of staff people find don’t fit the bill for whatever reason. The popular, hard workers, are treated differently. In the same way it is quite possible that someone being sacked has a different reason that we all know is a cover story but a judge would accept.

Jassy, What's your theory of why they're scared? I think most people find it hard to swim against the tide, especially when they would be ridiculed. I don’t get what you’re asking in your second part of that question so would you mind giving me that one again?

Headinhands, would a non-believer have to then believe in the story in genesis? I don’t think they would. They’d follow the notion of aliens first; anything other than God. That says a lot really.

VelvetGreen · 26/10/2014 14:42

I have visitors turning up in a minute, so will have to make do with a wiki c&p.

Variable rates of decay:
Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), while the decay of Radon-222 exhibit large 4% peak-to-peak seasonal variations, proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the Sun. However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper has found no evidence for such correlations in seven other isotopes (22Na, 44Ti, 108Ag, 121Sn, 133Ba, 241Am, 238Pu), and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.

The bolds are mine seeing as you objected to my using a sentence that contained the word 'unlikely'. It is hardly solid evidence and even if, as i said in relation to the article on solar flares that i linked to, there was some verifiable evidence that radioactive elements may be affected, it is not enough to change radiometric dates in any meaningful way. Here is the evidence that there is no such correlation in the other seven isotopes listed - this in itself demonstrates that even if (and it is an if) there are small variations in some isotopes that this cannot be extrapolated to all isotopes. As you point out, none of the ones that may exhibit variations are used for radiometric dating anyway.

I did make quite a number of points that you haven't responded to.

PickledInAJar · 26/10/2014 14:50

Thanks for proving my point. You've neatly agreed with your cut and paste article that there IS a known variation caused by the sun in some isotopes.

My point further was that it was once considered by scientists impossible that isotopes are not constant, but now we see just one tiny effect that alters it one little bit. Now that's the known, depending on your world-view there is a lot more than just the proximity of the sun likely to be affecting radioactive decay rates. As I said earlier, there are many assumptions which all put together give an entirely different calculation outcome.

Evolution is based on assumptions from a certain world-view and therefore as much a belief a different world-view: creationism.

PickledInAJar · 26/10/2014 14:51

What points did you make that I've missed?

JassyRadlett · 26/10/2014 15:13

The Bible itself is packed with contradictions - Christianity itself is compromise.

I'll pose my question another way. There are many, many countries where religion is a more dominant part of the culture than in the anglophone west without being theocracies - where religion plays a role similar to the role in all parts of life it played in Britain a century or more ago.

If the reason scientists are scared to speak out is because it goes against the prevailing theory base, why don't we see more young earth science being peer reviewed and coming out of other countries with a greater religious monoculture and a judiciary perhaps more receptive to theological arguments?

You should recalling all of this that evolution wasn't always the prevailing theory. Plenty of scientists have swum against the tide to get this the point where evolution is accepted almost universally among scientists as being supported by all the available evidence, and stands up as new evidence is discovered and understood.

Do you think scientists have become less brave?

JassyRadlett · 26/10/2014 15:17

Evolution is based on assumptions from a certain world-view and therefore as much a belief a different world-view: creationism.

Evolution came about because the evidence didn't support the dominant world-view of creationism and scientists and other rationalists could see an alternative explanation was required.

There haven't always been two parallel 'world views' as you put it. Why do you think the creationist approach declined?

Swipe left for the next trending thread