Religious Discussion [Enter at ye own Peril]

[RooFlyer]

From reading JohnK's post, he simply stated what he believes and he doesn't believe in those scientific theories. Surely he should be able to voice his opinions here? Yes, it may not line up with what the general scientific consensus here but his beliefs does not mean an attack to science? Science lasts for millenniums and still exists even though people have different opinions and beliefs?

No, he said, and has been saying a lot more about what he believes, he has made a number of representations about what scientific study has said. I have said repeatedly that I respect the statement and defence of beliefs. So I'm wondering where the "Surely he should be able to voice his opinions here? " comes from? He has the right to opinion and belief, but not, in my opinion to state falsehoods about what scientific endeavour has brought forth.

The topic in question is within my expertise and I'm not inclined to have falsehoods and misrepresentations about it being repeated over and over without challenge. OK?

To say what he is saying "may not line up with what the general scientific consensus here" is just a bit of an understatement. What he is saying here is a repudiation of much of the entire biological, cosmological, earth and evolutionary science.

That's all.

I haven't read every JohnK's comments here so I cannot say whether he called ALL scientists arrogant.

From my interpretation of JohnK's comment, is that JohnK simply doesn't believe that the carbon dating, and he thinks the assumption used is wrong. But that is just part of his opinion. I don't read that he is trying to insult scientists.

It is like the argument of global warming and climate changes. Just because someone doesn't believe in climate changes, even with scientific data, doesn't mean that they are insulting scientists. They all have their own opinions.

I do think you need to go through the thread to get an appreciation of the arguments JohnK has put forward.

And no, he hasn't said that he "simply doesn't believe that the carbon dating, and he thinks the assumption used is wrong." He has said "It is wrong". Full stop. Not an opinion, not a belief, just that "it's wrong".

What do you make of that?

 

[RooFlyer]

that is the findings of Bishop Ussher, and is a fairly accurate calculation based on the source he used, with not a great deal of margin for error in context. I am not sure what you mean by "beleiveing what he wrote" he only did some calender maths. critics of his work, from memory dont stack up, or use different variables for the approximations, which result in little difference.

however its more correct to say that recorded history only goes back around 4000+ years, not 6000. any claimed dates beyond 4000 get very rubbery indeed.

Personally I would not argue that the Old Testament shows that recorded history goes back 6000 years, because none of the old testament is datable on its own. Ussher extrapolated the dates backwards and IMO thats a different matter.

I actually wrote "Do you believe everything Ussher wrote ..." (new underlining). If JohnK accepts Ussher's 6,000 year figure (based on counting the 'begats ...'), then I was wondering if he accepts the other things Ussher wrote. And if not, why the selectivity? Or maybe JohnK hasn't read anything to support his 6,000 year figure either?

Critics of Ussher's work don't stack up? It doesn't 'stack up' to doubt that counting 'begats' and assuming ages of all the begatters, and assuming (more than) a few here and there when not explicitly recorded in the Testaments, and indeed taking the Testaments literally? I think it stacks up just a little bit.

however its more correct to say that recorded history only goes back around 4000+ years, not 6000. any claimed dates beyond 4000 get very rubbery indeed

.

Depends what you mean about "recorded history." The cave paintings in France and Australia certainly extend much further back than 4,000 or 6,000 years, as do burials and artefacts from throughout the Neolithic era (Stone age, and even pottery, y'know?). But of course if you say the basis for radiometric dating "is wrong", then I won't convince you of that.

 

[RooFlyer]

I think this would be a good point for those who don't think the basis of radiometric dating 'works', or 'is wrong" to say why they think or say that, exactly.

Time to put up, people.

 

[defurax]

I think this would be a good point for those who don't think the basis of radiometric dating 'works', or 'is wrong" to say why they think or say that, exactly.

Time to put up, people.

I can imagine some funny discussion between a patient and radiation therapist...
How do you know the isotope you are injecting me will behave the way you believe and not the way I believe it will

 

[JohnK]

Ah! Good 'Ol Bishop Ussher! Fine Irishman. Have you read his work? I did ( translated) at Uni for one of my projects.

I recall his date if Creation was 22 October 4004 BC. Yep, about 6,000 years ago.

Do you believe everything Ussher wrote, by the way?

Who is Ussher? I got my dates from CIV II by Sid Meyer.

ps. Calling out ignorance and cant does not constitute an attack on you JohnK. As I've said before, state and defend your beliefs by all means but stop making ignorant and misrepresenting statements about the science, please.

Clearly an attack.

Everything I wrote is my opinion. Big bang. Creationism. Evolutionary biology. Carbon dating. I did not state any of it is fact yet people here are trying to correct my opinion. Wow just wow.

There is an element of arrogance in mainstream scientists. You don't see it? I do. Mainstream science has been ridiculing religion for a long time to further their cause and bring down religion. The rest of us have an open mind.

When you find proof the big bang occurred that way and we all came from a common ancestor then I'll reconsider my position.

For now I choose to believe what I believe as that makes the most sense to me. Devote your whole life to it if you like but that doesn't mean I have to believe the theories and it certainly doesn't mean I am rubishing your work. I choose not to accept it.

There are some very smart Theologians around that can present the arguments in a much better way than me. The are some very smart Creationist scientists around that can present the arguments in a much better way than me.

 

[JessicaTam]

Who is Ussher? I got my dates from CIV II by Sid Meyer.

<snip>

Um, you mean a computer game??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_II

Now I know you are having a lend I tip my hat to you for having us all believe you were serious. Well done.

 

[Pushka]

I can imagine some funny discussion between a patient and radiation therapist...
How do you know the isotope you are injecting me will behave the way you believe and not the way I believe it will

Given that medications can have different side effects on people, how can anyone possibly assert that other medical treatments do not likewise exert different effects? Even two people presenting with the same intensity cancers in the same location will have different outcomes with the same treatments.

 

[theblank]

I'd say calling all scientists arrogant is an attack on science and a personal attack on all scientists. But hey, Johns the victim here as usual right?

Scientists are very often arrogant, egotistic, jealous, fame hungry and not open minded to criticism - just like regular people! They are often moreso driven by the need for grant funding than any adherence to a 'holy' quest to uncover truth.
If someone is offended by any perceived attack on 'science' is really being a bit too precious.

 

[kamchatsky]

And no, he hasn't said that he "simply doesn't believe that the carbon dating, and he thinks the assumption used is wrong." He has said "It is wrong". Full stop. Not an opinion, not a belief, just that "it's wrong".

What do you make of that?

OK let's get back to what JohnK has said here:

I don't believe in radiodating/carbon dating. We are talking about millions and billions of years. The assumption that the rate of decay will remain constant and not be affected by any outside influences is wrong. There is evidence around today that volcanic ash distorts carbon dating readings.

From how I read and interpret, JohnK does not believe in radiodating/carbon dating. The next sentence on "the assumption that the rate of decay is wrong", needs to put into context that "There is evidence today that volcanic ash distorts carbon dating readings".

So from what I read above, JohnK believes that the radiodating/carbon dating is wrong, because JohnK thinks the constant rate of delay is incorrect, due to JohnK seeing some evidence that volcanic ash distort carbon dating. Now that is what he believes from what he observes from some source which is not yet known (could be some newspaper articles, or some scientific journals, or even twitter).

Now what he reads from the on about the volcanic ash effect could be completely incorrect but it doesn't mean he cannot have his beliefs be heard in the forum. Sure you can disagree with him, I guess you and JohnK agree to disagree.

 

[theblank]

The recent series by Brian Cox on ABC was excellent for explaining the science of Cosmology. It outlined how the universe has been measured, how scientific data can be measured about the universe. not to mention how the theories match the data. It was much more convincing than "I look around and the earth just exists". I think that cosmology is of the view that the earth wasn't created at the same time as well. Cosmology doesn't believe in a young earth either.

Axioms only really apply to maths and logic.

Brian Cox has a dogmatic adherence to materialism, and all that goes with it, billions of years, no supernatural influence, and that defines how he interprets the data he sees. He cant see a creator anywhere because his axiom is that there isnt one.


the idea that scientists follow the evidence to where it leads is delusional.

 

[defurax]

Given that medications can have different side effects on people, how can anyone possibly assert that other medical treatments do not likewise exert different effects? Even two people presenting with the same intensity cancers in the same location will have different outcomes with the same treatments.

Not talking about efficacy of treatment. I was only referring to rate of decay of radioisotopes.

 

[Pushka]

Not talking about efficacy of treatment. I was only referring to rate of decay of radioisotopes.

And that is proven to be exactly the same in every possible environment?

 

[JohnK]

I can imagine some funny discussion between a patient and radiation therapist...
How do you know the isotope you are injecting me will behave the way you believe and not the way I believe it will

Medicines don't have any side effects do they? We know exactly how they will behave on everyone?

Not quite....

 

[defurax]

And that is proven to be exactly the same in every possible environment?

This might require a new thread on radioisotopes...(weird subject on AFF), but the fun thing with radiation and particle decay is that it is relatively easy to detect and count and even though some people have argued that some isotopes may behave a bit differently at -258 celsius...that's not really relevant to medical injections

 

[TomVexille]

Scientists are very often arrogant, egotistic, jealous, fame hungry and not open minded to criticism - just like regular people! They are often moreso driven by the need for grant funding than any adherence to a 'holy' quest to uncover truth.
If someone is offended by any perceived attack on 'science' is really being a bit too precious.

Not really any different from saying that all Christians are pedophiles. Which is patently not true, but some people would be offended.

 

[defurax]

Not talking about efficacy of treatment. I was only referring to rate of decay of radioisotopes.

And that is proven to be exactly the same in every possible environment?

Medicines don't have any side effects do they? We know exactly how they will behave on everyone?

Not quite....

This might require a new thread on radioisotopes...(weird subject on AFF), but the fun thing with radiation and particle decay is that it is relatively easy to detect and count and even though some people have argued that some isotopes may behave a bit differently at -258 celsius...that's not really relevant to medical injections

Ok, time for me to give up on this thread. A radioisotope is an element, it's not a "medicine" or "medication". Some radioisotopes are bound to a chelator or a peptide to help them reach a specific cell type in the body or bind to an overexpressed protein found in a tumour. The side effects, the efficacy in targeting malignant tissue have nothing to do with variations in the rate of decay of the radioisotope.

 

[RooFlyer]

Who is Ussher? I got my dates from CIV II by Sid Meyer.
<snip>

Um, you mean a computer game??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_II

Now I know you are having a lend I tip my hat to you for having us all believe you were serious. Well done.

Yes; well played JohnK. I think you had us all going pretty well .

Umm, unless, of course you really DO base your beliefs on a computer game. You don't really, do you? You may be pulling all our legs, but please answer that one seriously.

I guess unless your computer game has Bishop Ussher in it, you may not have heard of him, so that's excusable.

<snip>
Clearly an attack.

Everything I wrote is my opinion. Big bang. Creationism. Evolutionary biology. Carbon dating. I did not state any of it is fact yet people here are trying to correct my opinion. Wow just wow.

There is an element of arrogance in mainstream scientists. You don't see it? I do. Mainstream science has been ridiculing religion for a long time to further their cause and bring down religion. The rest of us have an open mind.

When you find proof the big bang occurred that way and we all came from a common ancestor then I'll reconsider my position.

For now I choose to believe what I believe as that makes the most sense to me. Devote your whole life to it if you like but that doesn't mean I have to believe the theories and it certainly doesn't mean I am rubishing your work. I choose not to accept it.

There are some very smart Theologians around that can present the arguments in a much better way than me. The are some very smart Creationist scientists around that can present the arguments in a much better way than me.

Its pointless debating with some-one whose words are readable to all in the posts and lines above, yet are denied in black and white here. I point out again that you have made numerous assertions about what science puts forward and you have asserted things to be 'wrong", without qualification (eg "in my opinion").

And its pointless debating someone who apparently bases their beliefs on a computer game.

Ye Gods.

 

[Pushka]

This might require a new thread on radioisotopes...(weird subject on AFF), but the fun thing with radiation and particle decay is that it is relatively easy to detect and count and even though some people have argued that some isotopes may behave a bit differently at -258 celsius...that's not really relevant to medical injections

I'd say that in general they might be predictable but that doesn't exclude exceptions.

 

[Pushka]

Ok, time for me to give up on this thread. A radioisotope is an element, it's not a "medicine" or "medication". Some radioisotopes are bound to a chelator or a peptide to help them reach a specific cell type in the body or bind to an overexpressed protein found in a tumour. The side effects, the efficacy in targeting malignant tissue have nothing to do with variations in the rate of decay of the radioisotope.

Didn't you introduce the topic?

 

[defurax]

I'd say that in general they might be predictable but that doesn't exclude exceptions.

I'll have to disagree. If I order P32 from the USA and it arrives in Australia 14 days later and I put some of it in a scintillation counter I will observe exactly half the radioactivity as the day it was shipped from the US. Half life of radioisotopes is not something that is random. Isn't that why we are afraid of nuclear weapons?