General Science Questions? - Page 2

Wombat;

 

 

ocean;

 

 

praise god

Wow, amazing how some will try to negate science just because it does not coincide with a certain belief system.  Unfortunately to some, evolution has been made a scientific theory through preponderance of evidence.  People have increased in size due to improved nutrition and health care not the other way around.  Human life expectancy has increased as nutrition and health care has improved, not the other way around. 

Carbon dating is good to 50,000-60,000 years not the less than 30,000 mentioned above.

Branches of science were not discovered by creationists as the term "creationist" is relatively new and significant scientific discoveries started in 2 BC. 

why does everyone just mention carbon dating, it is only one of a long list of radio-metric dating techniques all for designed for a particular job.

and why do creationists consider themselves the spokesmen for all xians, they are not, they are a minority. mny xiaans embrace evolution and see no conflict with their faith, they just don't preach to the gullible.

Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column.

Laboratories will not carbion date dinosaur bones because there's not carbon in them, it's been replace by minerals, DUH

did you paste that from shtal's anti-science?

you actually bothered to read it?

yes these blatant lies speaks volumes of the character of the people spreading them, really no excuse.

is telling lies allowed in the 10 comandments?

Its not like the point about carbon dating hasn't been made to Shtal on here about a hundred times !

Talk about none so deaf as those who do not want to hear ;  he just goes on trotting out the same ol'

lines.  There's a word for that.

Wow, amazing how some will try to negate science just because it does not coincide with a certain belief system.

 

Unfortunately to some, evolution has been made a scientific theory through preponderance of evidence. 

 

Dear Mindhunt you really need to get serious help, your remark does not have any meaning, these evolutionists commit what is called the fallacy of reification is where you give personal characteristics to something that really can’t really isn’t personal. You heard on expression it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature, well that is reification; nature does not have a mind and it cannot be fooled, there is no mother to nature, and nature is the name we give to events of the universe. But your evolutionist friends my dear Mindhunt would do with science; example, they say science says such and such, well science doesn’t say anything, science is the set of tools that we use to discover certain type of truth claims; but your secular scientist’s friends say things like what you just said my dear Mindhunt. You see once you put though on it then you got a person who can make mistakes where as science sounds sort of like this you know that can’t be wrong, is this wonderful tool - but that is fallacy of reification with what you posted. All of the dating methods be there carbon, potassium organ, uranium led and etc…All of them are based on the assumption that geologic column is already correct. The geologic column was developed in 1830’s long before any radiometric dating even though-of. The geologic column divides earth up, into different layers, if the bone was found in one of the geologic divided column layers, it is predetermine that is going to be about 70 million years old. So which of the dating methods they use? Carbon 14, potassium organ, uranium 235 and uranium 238; they will decide which method to use based on how old they think it is. They already decided the range that’s right, even if it contains carbon, they will not carbon date dinosaur bone. Dinosaur’s bones have been found that even been not fossilized, they are still bone. That would fit the creationist world view, after the flood things were fossilized at different rates. But all of the dating methods are based on faulty assumption that geologic column is correct and it is a hoax. But geologic column is the Bible to the evolutionist. Geologic column is there Bible; everything must match the geologic column. If I found a bone and I ask to carbon date, it would give a date 10, 15 or 20 thousands of years; they would not accept that date because it doesn’t fit the preciosity idea. They would select which method to use based on there first assumption that geologic column is correct and they if they tested with uranium and founded that it is ONLY 10 million years old that would be rejected because it doesn’t fit the geologic column. They may have to test bone sample 10 times to get the number that fits there pattern. Some of you folks who believe you can proof the world billions of years old by carbon dating, do not understand carbon dating. It’s all circular reasoning based on the assumptions. It’s not useless it’s a neat tool to use for some things if you already know approximate age, it’s NOT useless but it’s overblown. You can’t prove that this world is billions of years old.

Wow, Shtal, I feel so sorry for you, can I offer any help? Extremism is extremism no matter what religion and unfortunately you fall in this group, again, I am so sorry for you.

look familiar, from answersingenesis;

"Reification is attributing a concrete characteristic to something that is abstract. Perhaps you have heard the old saying, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” This is an example of reification because “nature” is an abstraction; it is simply the name we give to the chain of events in the universe. Nature is not a person and cannot literally be fooled, since nature does not have a mind. So, this expression would not make sense if taken literally.

Of course, not all language should be taken literally. There is nothing wrong with reification as a figure of speech. It is perfectly acceptable in poetry. Even the Bible uses reification at times in its poetic sections. For example, Proverbs 8 personifies the concept of wisdom. This is a perfectly acceptable (and poetically beautiful) use of reification.

However, when reification is used as part of a logical argument, it is a fallacy. The reason for this is that using such a poetic expression is often ambiguous and can obscure important points in a debate. It is very common for evolutionists to commit this fallacy. Let’s look at some examples of the fallacy of reification as they are commonly used in evolutionary arguments.

Sometimes in an argument, an evolutionist will say something like this: “Nature has designed some amazing creatures.” This sentence commits the fallacy of reification because nature does not have a mind and cannot literally design anything. By using the fallacy of reification, the evolutionist obscures the fact that the evolution worldview really cannot account for the design of living creatures. (Keep in mind that he may be doing this unintentionally). God can design creatures because God is a person. Nature is a concept and cannot design anything.

“Creationists say the world was created supernaturally, but science says otherwise.” Here the person has attributed personal, concrete attributes to the concept of science. In doing so, he or she overlooks the important fact that the scientists draw conclusions about the evidence and verbalize such conclusions—not “science.” Science is a conceptual tool that can be used properly or improperly. It says nothing. It does not take a position on issues. So, this common example of reification is logically fallacious.

“The evidence speaks for itself.” This expression is quite common, but when used as part of an argument, it is the fallacy of reification. Evidence does not speak at all. Evidence is a concept: the name we give to a body of facts that we believe to be consistent with a particular point of view. People draw conclusions about evidence and verbalize their thoughts. But evidence itself does not have thoughts to verbalize.

“Evolution figured out a way around these problems.” I have a heard a number of evolutionists say something along these lines when attempting to explain some intricately designed biological system. But, of course, evolution is a concept. It has no mind and cannot figure out anything. So, this example again obscures the difficulty in accounting for design in the universe without appealing to a mind. It is a fallacious use of reification.

Natural selection is an example of reification and could be considered a fallacy if used in an argument.

Even the phrase natural selection is an example of reification and could be considered a fallacy if used in an argument. Nature cannot literally select. This phrase is so commonly used that we might not call it a fallacy providing the meaning is understood by all. We do believe in the concept called “natural selection.” Yes, organisms that are well-suited to an environment are more likely to survive than those that are not well-suited. (This is tautologically true and is something that both creationists and evolutionists believe).

But, suppose we asked, “Why is it that animals are well-suited to their environment?” If an evolutionist answered “natural selection,” this would be the fallacy of reification. It poetically obscures the true reason that animals are designed to survive—God.

If you think about it, natural selection does not actually explain why we find organisms suited to their environment. It only explains why we do not find organisms that are unsuited to their environment (i.e., because they die).

 

It is God—not “nature”—who has given living beings the abilities they need to survive."

 

i bolded the last line - and the evidence of this?

Dear Mindhunt

glad he has a new dear to confide in

you really need to get serous help,

says shtal, discrediting anyone who disagrees with him

your remark does not have any meaning,

the only meaning god has is what meaning people create in their own minds cos they can not show any physical evidence god exists

these evolutionists commit what is called the fallacy of reification

no they don't they have mulpitple sources of evidence to support their claims, shatl has no evidence

is where you give personal characteristics to something that really can’t really isn’t personal.

this sentence is gibberish

You heard on expression it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature, well that is reification; nature does not have a mind and it cannot be fooled,

yes it's an expression, a figure of speech, this is shtal's refutation of evolution, he puts words in other people mouths just so he can say they are wrong  show us the published scientific papers where scientists say nature canot be fooled

there is no mother to nature,

agreed, and no father and no creator

and nature is the name we give to events of the universe.

typing on a computer, an event in the universe, not nature

But your evolutionist friends my dear Mindhunt would do with science; example, they say science says such and such, well science doesn’t say anything,

no the results of scientific experiments is what scientific conclusions are baased on, the numbers don't speak english

science is the set of tools that we use to discover certain type of truth claims;

agreed, the best way to evaluate truth claims we know of

but your secular scientist’s friends say things like what you just said my dear Mindhunt.

huh

You see once you put though on it then you got a person who can make mistakes

huh

where as science sounds sort of like this you know that can’t be wrong,

sounds sort of like, what science says that - creationism?

is this wonderful tool

yes

 - but that is fallacy of reification with what you posted.

nope

All of the dating methods be there carbon, potassium organ, uranium led and etc…All of them are based on the assumption that geologic column is already correct.

radiometric techniques are not based on the geologic colum

The geologic column was developed in 1830’s long before any radiometric dating even though-of.

that why they are noit based on them

The geologic column divides earth up, into different layers, if the bone was found in one of the geologic divided column layers, it is predetermine that is going to be about 70 million years old. So which of the dating methods they use? Carbon 14, potassium organ, uranium 235 and uranium 238; they will decide which method to use based on how old they think it is.

wrong

 

They already decided the range that’s right, even if it contains carbon, they will not carbon date dinosaur bone.

because old fossils are mineralised

Dinosaur’s bones have been found that even been not fossilized, they are still bone.

references please

That would fit the creationist world view,

thats why you should supply references, and a world view is not, science, evidence is

after the flood things were fossilized at different rates.

proof of this flood, they have been looking for 6000 years, still no evidence of a global flood?

But all of the dating methods are based on faulty assumption that geologic column is correct and it is a hoax.

dating techniques and method that creationists have invented - oh none.

But geologic column is the Bible to the evolutionist.

ah no it's the geologic column

Geologic column is there Bible;

ah no, another unsubstantiated claim

everything must match the geologic column.

no only the things that much it match it, you only need one counter example and evolution falls over, 6000 years and nobody has found one, that why evolution is true biblical creationism is myth.

If I found a bone and I ask to carbon date, it would give a date 10, 15 or 20 thousands of years; they would not accept that date because it doesn’t fit the preciosity idea.

unsubstantiated claim based, specious reasoning,  no evidence

They would select which method to use based on there first assumption that geologic column is correct and they if they tested with uranium and founded that it is ONLY 10 million years old that would be rejected because it doesn’t fit the geologic column.

unsubstantiated claim based, specious reasoning,  no evidence

They may have to test bone sample 10 times to get the number that fits there pattern.

unsubstantiated claim based, specious reasoning,  no evidence

Some of you folks who believe you can proof the world billions of years old by carbon dating,

nobody who understaands carbon dating thinks you can age the univers with it.

do not understand carbon dating.

Sthal does not understand carbon dating

It’s all circular reasoning based on the assumptions.

you have only displayed denial of reasonong, false claims, lies, mis-truths, and gibberish

It’s not useless

neither is creationism, it's a good way to get money from gullible people

it’s a neat tool to use for some things if you already know approximate age, it’s NOT useless but it’s overblown. You can’t prove that this world is billions of years old.

that why carbon dating is not used for that purpose