nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→If this is a joke, it's not that funny.: Reasons for rejecting dating methods, and different types of science.
::There's a concept in math and science called "order of magnitude." That is, is an error in 10s of years, 100s of years, 1000s of years, 10000s of years, etc. A geologic timescale of 6000-ish years imply that gross errors in rock dating would be in 100s of years and within a few percent would be 10s of years. Sure, there are errors--science is always up for revising its measurements and making it more precise--but the order of magnitude of 10000 on a geologic timescale of millions of years is so incredibly small to be laughable. Even 1000000 years among 65 million years is about 2%. And for someone to dismiss all of geological dating because "there are errors" is intellectually dishonest (in my opinion, of course). And I've always found it interesting that some "views" of science are OK whereas others are "questionable." If people don't like science and technology, then they should get rid of their car, their manufactured clothes, the food that comes to the grocery store, their car and all medical care. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::There's a concept in math and science called "order of magnitude." That is, is an error in 10s of years, 100s of years, 1000s of years, 10000s of years, etc. A geologic timescale of 6000-ish years imply that gross errors in rock dating would be in 100s of years and within a few percent would be 10s of years. Sure, there are errors--science is always up for revising its measurements and making it more precise--but the order of magnitude of 10000 on a geologic timescale of millions of years is so incredibly small to be laughable. Even 1000000 years among 65 million years is about 2%. And for someone to dismiss all of geological dating because "there are errors" is intellectually dishonest (in my opinion, of course). And I've always found it interesting that some "views" of science are OK whereas others are "questionable." If people don't like science and technology, then they should get rid of their car, their manufactured clothes, the food that comes to the grocery store, their car and all medical care. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm familiar with the concept of "order of magnitude", thanks. I don't see the relevance here unless you are saying that 6000 years is just too big an adjustment for you to make.
:::I don't dismiss all of geological dating just because "there are errors". I reject it for several reasons, including (a) it contradicts the written testimony of God, (b) there are ''lots'' of examples of contradictory dates, (c) it is based on unprovable assumptions, and (d) there are very few if any examples where it has been shown to be right on rocks of known age.
:::Your "interest" in some science views being okay and some questionable ignores the difference between [[physical science#Types of science|operational and origins science]]. Your examples are the former, whereas I am rejecting the latter. No contradiction there at all. And some of those examples actually benefited from the research of creationists.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)