Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 66552

Akriku: the problem with your babbling in the original post is that evidence itself is subjective

tell me: you believe in carbon-dating? if a scientist says that a rock is 50 million years old and he has "proven" that by carbon-dating, would you believe him? would you believe he has proved it?

if so - then you are believing him based on FAITH in the idea of carbon-dating. you do not KNOW that the rock is as old as he claims it is. but based on faith in an idea - that is what determines whether or not you accept something as valid "evidence" or not

this principle is not limited to the example i've used. for almost anything that you state which contradicts religious texts - i could PROVE to you how your statement has NOT been proven with evidence - but rather is based on faith and speculation on your part.


Navaros, FED2K Discussion 39 Comments [10/23/2009 4:33:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 39
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Chamale

Carbon dating is only effective up to 60,000 years. Otherwise, there is not enough of a C14 sample. So no, I would not trust your strawman scientist.

Also, learn about a subject before you try to disprove it, plzkthx.

10/23/2009 4:37:53 PM

Thinking Allowed

ell me: you believe in carbon-dating? if a scientist says that a rock is 50 million years old and he has "proven" that by carbon-dating, would you believe him? would you believe he has proved it?

Fail number one. Rocks are dated by radiometric dating, not carbon dating.

if so - then you are believing him based on FAITH in the idea of carbon-dating. you do not KNOW that the rock is as old as he claims it is. but based on faith in an idea - that is what determines whether or not you accept something as valid "evidence" or not

Fail number two. See fail number one.

this principle is not limited to the example i've used. for almost anything that you state which contradicts religious texts - i could PROVE to you how your statement has NOT been proven with evidence - but rather is based on faith and speculation on your part.

Fail number three seeing how you don't understand that rocks are not dated by carbon dating.

Something else to understand. Scientist when using carbon dating, also use other dating methods in conjunction with it. Luminescence and infrared absorption dating is also commonly used. If any accurate dating occurs, all the tests done have to hit within the same time period of the date.

10/23/2009 4:43:31 PM

SleepNeed

No, I wouldn't trust his carbon dating on a rock supposedly created 50 million years old because carbon dating works for only 60,000 years and carbon dating isn't used on rocks. Now, if it was potassium-argon dating on the other hand with a volcanic rock.

10/23/2009 4:46:19 PM

Leliel

No, I trust it because I know how it works.

And yes, I am a devout Christian who happens to believe in evolution and history. THINK ABOUT IT.

10/23/2009 4:53:30 PM

Zeus Almighty

The Earth does not rest on pillars, and there is no mountain from which Jesus and Satan could have viewed all the kingdoms of the Earth.
I just proved your Bible wrong. Of course, you can have faith in your goat fucker's book o' mythology. But the Bible can only be used as proof of P.T. Barnum's axiom.

10/23/2009 5:02:18 PM

LabRat

Carbon dating works on things that were alive. You know, organic matter that has CARBON in it? Because the amount of C14 remains stable during a creature's life until they die and the C14 starts to decay?

Not useful for dating rocks?

Well, maybe in very young diamonds.

10/23/2009 5:06:15 PM

Mudak

I have to assume that this guy keeps striking out with women, so his best dates have been with rocks.

10/23/2009 5:21:22 PM

DRoseDARs

Mudak, I hope he uses A LOT of Jesus-approved lube...

10/23/2009 5:24:13 PM

Doctor Whom

The number of legs on an insect is not based on faith and speculation on my part. I've counted them.

10/23/2009 5:28:05 PM

Doubting Thomas

From what I understand, Carbon-14 only works on organic material, not minerals. Plus it doesn't work for items 50 million years old.

But I'd much rather trust a scientist who follows the scientific method rather than religious texts. Scientists have been found to be far more accurate and trustworthy than homeschooled creationists who have an agenda and not only don't understand science at all, but completely hate it as well.

10/23/2009 5:30:19 PM

jadehawk

if anyone told me they had proven something to be 50 million years old by means of carbon dating, i'd tell them to go back to school and try again.

10/23/2009 5:42:25 PM

jadehawk

also, I'm sick of fundies saying that dating methods don't work, and then failing to show any reasonable explanation why all these differently failing dating methods agree with each other (and that goes not just for radiometric dating methods, but for such things like dendrochronology, ice-cores, and varves).

10/23/2009 5:44:23 PM

SurfinSeaOtter

No, I would not trust a scientist who carbon dates rocks

10/23/2009 6:04:51 PM

John

"Faith" is belief in the absence of evidence; not any belief whatsoever, even if accompanied by reasonable explanation. "Faith" is not a synonym for what the rest of us call "inductive reasoning" - the drawing of a conclusion from an accumulation of prior evidence.

For example, there is no objective, verifiable evidence for the existence of God. That is accepted on faith. There is plenty of objective, verifiable evidence for C14 dating, including testing against objects of known age.

10/23/2009 6:05:20 PM

BobsOldSocks

"but based on faith in an idea - that is what determines whether or not you accept something as valid "evidence" or not"

Absolutely not. The evidence and logic behind radiometric dating is available for *anyone* to examine and more to the point, it's not *a* scientist that speaks to the validity of a dating technique but the scientific method itself. Science is self-correcting and if a scientist gets something wrong, or can't back up his or her ideas with solid evidence and logic, then watch out! Other scientists will be very quick to highlight any errors or sloppy methodology, something that religion *does not* do. Religion seeks to preserve everything intact - errors, contradictions, even lies - to preserve the façade of infallibility and reinforce the idea of Absolute Truth© from unchallengeable authority.

I know which one I trust - the one in which anyone with a modicum of intelligence, intellectual honesty and an abiding curiosity about the world can take part; no unchanging, unlearning, *unknowing* dogmatic and ultimately intellectually bankrupt religion need apply.

10/23/2009 6:08:00 PM

Horsefeathers

"Akriku: the problem with your babbling in the original post is that evidence itself is subjective"

That depends entirely on what kind of evidence it is.

"tell me: you believe in carbon-dating? if a scientist says that a rock is 50 million years old and he has "proven" that by carbon-dating, would you believe him?"

No. I would dismiss him immediately and then seriously question his credentials as no "scientist" in their right mind would carbon date a rock.

"would you believe he has proved it?"

No, I would not since, as I pointed out, you don't carbon date rocks.

"if so - then you are believing him based on FAITH in the idea of carbon-dating."

Carbon dating requires no "faith".

"for almost anything that you state which contradicts religious texts - i could PROVE to you how your statement has NOT been proven with evidence - but rather is based on faith and speculation on your part."

Fine. Show that the Earth is not round. Your holy texts all say it is flat; empirical evidence such as satellite imagery, direct observation by astronauts and so on show otherwise.

Good luck.

10/23/2009 6:26:27 PM

Philip from Australia

I do not have 'faith' in what the scientists say.

It is better to say I trust them. If I wanted (had the time and inclination), I could go and learn about a field. Then be able to look at the evidence, and work out if what they had said was accurate.

I do lack the math, and time to do that for a lot of fields. So do a lot of others. So the scientific method has some up with this little thing called 'peer review'.

When it is allowed to work (the cold fusion debacle springs to mind - but even that was corrected by the system) it seems quite trustworthy. Other scientist look at the data. Repeat the observations (if possible), repeat the calculations, and confirm OR NOT what was said.

So, no. I have no faith that the scientist is right. I have trust.

(oh yea, I'm ignoring the C-14 not working on rocks or for that time period thing... going straight to the point)

Now, if YOU say it's 6000 years old?? Now I have a problem. Because where is YOUR evidence? Oh yea... some theologian counted begots in the bible. Yea. THAT is independently verifiable.

10/23/2009 6:26:39 PM

Canadiest

You can prove no such thing.
His conclusion is based on fact and scientific fact. Otherwise known as the real world or imperical evidence

Yours is faith in a stolen, rewritten fairy tale

10/23/2009 6:52:31 PM



If he shows me how he came to the conclusion then yeah I'll believe him.

10/23/2009 6:52:39 PM

Vince

Still doesn't change that our explanations are much more believable than yours.

In fact all you've done is remind us why we never believe a word you say.

10/23/2009 7:05:03 PM

Osiris

No, but I can go to another, completly unrelated scientist, and give him the same rock, and if he does the same thing, and comes back with the same result, then carbon-dating works.

And guess what? Carbon dating works.

10/23/2009 7:20:53 PM

Tallyho


@Phil From Aus
Now, if YOU say it's 6000 years old?? Now I have a problem. Because where is YOUR evidence? Oh yea... some theologian counted begots in the bible. Yea. THAT is independently verifiable.

The fundies think independent verification of that is someone else counted them too and got the same number.

10/23/2009 8:14:34 PM

Zoo

"if a scientist says that a rock is 50 million years old and he has "proven" that by carbon-dating, would you believe him? would you believe he has proved it?"

I'd wonder if the scientist slipped up naming the test he used, but otherwise, no, because carbon dating doesn't work for things that old. But that wasn't your point. So yes, if he named the actual test he used, I'd accept that. Why? Dating methods work by known principles, not guessing.

10/23/2009 8:46:39 PM

GodotIsWaiting4U

The difference is that if we ask him to show us the evidence for his claims, HE CAN.

10/23/2009 10:01:30 PM

solomongrundy

To be fair the posters on FED2K seem to all be children, or at least I hope so...

10/23/2009 10:18:37 PM
1 2