Survey: Young Earth or Old Earth?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 15 2006, 02:40 PM) [snapback]255804[/snapback]</div>

dude, you can not be serious.

i don't know anyone who bases conclusions on FUTURE evidence that hasn't been discovered yet. that's not called observation, it's conditional speculation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 15 2006, 02:51 PM) [snapback]255809[/snapback]</div>

No one did... I'm just saying to not exclude the possibility something might change in the future. Although you, I, betelguese know this is "assumed", people don't. You can't assume your audience inherently knows something or other. I can't tell you all the times I've seen people choke because they made assumptions as to something someone or other should have known.... It's like a tainting of the perspective/standpoint that's presented. IMO anyway...

 

If people educated in the US don't know enough about the scientific method to know that scientific theories are based on observations, the education system is in a lot more trouble than even I thought.

My little brother is in 7th grade and can recite the steps to the scientific method - and the idea that science is based on just what you can observe is just too basic for me to forgive people forgetting

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ May 15 2006, 03:38 PM) [snapback]255835[/snapback]</div>

Oh for chrissakes no one is saying anything about the official scientific method! Geez, does anyone actually READ what I wrote? :lol:

 

people really should be able to understand that science is an ongoing process and that over the years we have come up with better and more fitting explanations for many things with the collection of new and compelling data. new technology leads to new discoveries. tomorrow's always another day. you think people don't understand that? i must be overestimating the world then.

the search for answers never really ends. even when you answer one question, that leads you to ask 10 more. in that manner, scientific pursuits, discoveries, lines of reasoning are increasing at an exponential rate.

all in all i don't see a point on adding the "based upon what we know now" disclaimer to everything.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ May 14 2006, 06:14 PM) [snapback]255433[/snapback]</div>

You can't directly date a bone or other organic object via the K-AR method. This particular method is for dating igneous formations (granites and the like). If the rock is melted then the clock resets because the AR-40 escapes. The material that you're dating has to contain K-40 (which decays to AR-40) and trap the AR-40 that is the result of the decay. K-AR dating has a resolution of something like 1 mya so it would be poor choice for dating formations that were thought to coincide with human occupation of an area. It might be useful as a upper bound on the age of a specimen but from what little I know about the process it wouldn't be used to directly date a specimen.

Can someone else (geologyrox) chime in on this? Geochronology ain't my forte. I have a geology degree (mid 90's) , but havn't practiced it professionally.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 15 2006, 04:03 PM) [snapback]255857[/snapback]</div>

IMO? Yup.

FWIW, I deal in a LOT of legalese-type issues, if even the slightest transmission of whatever information is open to interpretation based upon something that is assumed, the whole thing can, and will, at some point, blow up. Lawsuits will fly, and most likely, tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars will be placed at risk. People have blown careers and even ended up in jail becuase they glossed over what they thought were the most minute details, and didn't caveat their work to death. No offense, but you're still in acadamia, where all you really risk is your credibility. Attach ten million to it, and suddenly the most minute details will be torn apart, scrutinized, and framed, by people who think they can somehow gain something from it. I'm sure you've already gotten a taste of this in grad school...

So, in the end, I disagree, and see a very valid point for adding such disclaimers as, "based upon what we know now..."

 

that's a great point and logical in your line of business, but in a rather informal discussion of such points, why bring in all this formality? noone's going to sue based on what they read here.

if i were putting it into a contract sure. why not. but since this is really nothing more than a discussion/debate and nothing formal... not needed.

you'd have to either be out for profit or living under a rock to not get that science makes new discoveries every day and that new discoveries can possibly give us new viewpoints on existing data.

 

My only experience is with dating igneous samples, and occasionally using the same processes to date metamorphic events. I can't quite come up with a good excuse as to why someone would be using K-AR to date human remains - I'd have to see the studies, and I admit I'd be skeptical of the scientist attempting to do it. I'm not surprised that K-AR dating of something would come out totally differently than the carbon dating, since their spans of accuracy don't overlap. If you've got the studies or any good references, I'd be interested in reading them.


Squid, I'll be more careful about assumptions in the future - even things I think really should have been covered in grade school. Don't you ever come up against someone who didn't know something really basic and think, "Man, where did this clown go to school?" (it's especially depressing when you find out they went to better schools than you =P)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ May 15 2006, 05:16 PM) [snapback]255904[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

...all the time.






<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 15 2006, 05:14 PM) [snapback]255903[/snapback]</div>

Someone once made the argument here that it wasn't really about those engaged in the discussion but rather those silent individuals reading the discussion. Personally, I don't give a fat flying f**k, my attention was attracted to the post in question because it most certainly wreaked of an unusual 'definitism' when I took off my common-sense-science-esque goggles....

Hey, I just invented a new word: definitism

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 15 2006, 05:22 PM) [snapback]255906[/snapback]</div>

i think you just revealed how you can present arguments for the most ridiculous side of things :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 15 2006, 05:45 PM) [snapback]255917[/snapback]</div>

Why not? You think when you go up against the committee they're not going to grasp at anything they can to tear you apart?

..and I don't mean that in bad way, I'm just saying....

 

oh i know. i'm on the chopping block a week from tomorrow, don't think i'm not anticipating how they're going to try to pull the rug out from under my feet.

but in most cases their questions are based on common sense and scientific principles, if they pull off the common sense goggles i'm welcome to do the same.

yeah speaking of which i need to get back to the literature :angry:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 15 2006, 06:07 PM) [snapback]255925[/snapback]</div>

Now see, I'm not sure how they precisely go about eating you up, and picking through galaxee chunks in their stool, but consider this: If someone like me, was on that panel, rest assured I would come at you with something totally illogical (maybe lead you down some legit path to make it seem real), asinine, and out of left field, just to push your buttons to see how you would react and recover, at probably the worst possible moment I could find.

h34r:

 

fortunately my committee is focused on making sure i know facts and principles and not, you know, simply trying to waste my time and #$(* with my head for 3 hours.

as are most people interested in extending scientific knowledge.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 16 2006, 12:14 AM) [snapback]256120[/snapback]</div>

What?? You mean there's more to it than politics??? :lol:

j/k That's cool though... The only real perspective I have was from a good friend who went up to bat for molecular biology... apparently, they did in fact try to mess with his head at various points.....