TED Conversations

Kevin Hernandez

This conversation is closed.

How, if any at all! can we minimize the conflicts of religion and atheism.

Finding reasonable ways to bridge religion and atheism. As an atheist I firmly believe there is no God or Gods that exist and there are many others that have this conviction. We all know the antagonism that our group receives and such. And we know the antagonism that the religious receive from those that call themselves militant atheists'. Religion is widely dispersed throughout the world, the cultures and customs associated with it are vast and the ethics that radiate from it is breathtaking. These are elements I think that we can't and should never ignore. Which leads me to say that we should seek a middle course between these two systems. But how?

Share:

Closing Statement from Kevin Hernandez

This conversation has inspired heated debate among a number of you and only seeks to solidify how robust the antagonism is between these two groups. Some incredible points were brought up, but It looks like we still have a long way to go before harmonizing these far-flung groups.
Thank you for your participation, it was most welcome.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 15 2011: Thank you, Kevin, for your question and for directing me to two TED talks (Dawkins and Armstrong) for perspective as I see it.
    In another conversation (on “tolerance”), Gisela McKay taught me one may neither respect nor disrespect: can be neutral (just never occurred to me).
    For some time, perhaps two years, neutral is the position I have taken regarding the question: why does evolution seem to follow laws? First, I do not know that my perception about laws is true: perhaps evolution is chaotic. Also, I do not know that evolution follows the same pattern in other universes if there are other universes. Since I do not know, I am neither theist nor atheist nor non-theist. Now, I can add, “I prefer to remain neutral.”
    Moreover, I prefer faith in reality, whatever it is. To believe in anything else would require me to turn my back on reality (I think). Belief would inhibit my opportunity to understand.
    I want to help revolutionize—improve--the world’s attitudes toward non-religious people, because the status hurts life. Richard Dawkins changed my claim about what I am. I am a human being and member of the community of living species (the change being “living species” instead of humankind).
    I like Ms. Armstrong’s invitation to use alternative words to “compassion,” and think that would make a good TED conversation. “Compassion” seems intrusive, but I want to learn.
    It seems to me she should know more and share about the so called golden rule. Its positive form, “Always treat all others as you would like to be treated yourself,” seems egocentric. And the negative statement, “Don’t do to others what you would not like them to do to you,” while considerate of the other, seems limited to your experience or imagination. I suggest, “Treat each other with empathy.” Again, I want to learn.
    Phil
    • Sep 15 2011: Philip,
      If you want to ”understand more” it might be an idea to think about the concept of “Linguistic thinking” (thinking using words, rather than thinking then trying to find words to use to express your thoughts), then consider the possibility of the severe inadequacy of the English language to provide the words needed for very much more than trade and everyday prosaic things. Greek, and ancient Greek, so they tell me is a far better language to use to ‘think in’ in terms of any kind of philosophical a stuff. I don’t speak a word of Greek but it’s adequacy is not limited to the 4 different words used for the 1 English word “love” in the New Testament so I’m told. Your “I suggest, ‘“Treat each other with empathy’ ” is then limited to the ability – sometimes very low of an individual to empathise. Too much of English philosophy and debates in general is just a rabbit hole run of trying to express an idea using an inadequate linguistic tool. I don’t know the original, but in the Greek New Testament the instruction is “Love one another as I have loved you” and I suspect in the original it meant a more balanced, less stifling, less limited to the abilities or otherwise of the ‘Lover’ sort of thing. When English people talk about such things they need to do it ‘live’ so that the tone of the voice, the body language, the hand movements… can help set the tone for what they are trying to express. Chasing a dry definitional improvement to : “Treat each other with empathy” will just lead to other problems with the new inadequate words chosen. If you are stuck with words on paper add “you know what I mean” and “Sort of” and give a few boundary ‘worked examples’. - I suggest.
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: I'll never forget arriving in Greece in May at my age 29 with no knowledge of Greece or Greek. The following Monday, I got on a bus and many Greeks said in Greek, "Good morning; how are you." I spent the day trying to learn to respond, "Good, thank you. And you?" However, that night, I got the clerk at the hotel to teach me, "Not, good. I did not sleep well last night." (Use Google translate to try this--it ain't easy to learn.) The next morning the Greeks cracked up with my response to "Good morning; how are you?" The Greeks loved my enthisiam for their language and loved to teach me.
        In June, I got on the bus, and the sun was hot and believe it or not, the entire right side of the bus was filled. Not one seat in the shade! I sat on the left and was so sefl conscious I thought it was me, not shade that caused them to sit right. I asked, "How do I say, 'Alone, I'll balance the bus."
        A big, loud conversation started and after a few minutes, they said, "There is no popular Greek word for "balance," but we are going to teach you a sentence mixiing popular Greek with the ancient Greek word. Say 'Monos moo tha isoropiso to layophroeo."
        In all things we need balance.
        • thumb
          Sep 16 2011: Oh I absolutely loved that story and the spirit within you that lived it!
          Yes, I agree. In all things we need balance.
        • thumb
          Sep 18 2011: Haha love it "Not, good. I did not sleep well last night." That story is gold
    • Sep 15 2011: In terms of the current debate, the same word “Science” is used for real finding things out and proving things type stuff and for also for the new Karl Popper style hypothesis (posh word for made up) science. Far too much of this debate has been taken up with the “made up stuff” borrowing credibility from the “real science stuff” just because they share the same linguistic name Science – I’m not the 1st to point it out : On “Friends” Ross is in the hospital and says “Hi I am Dr Geller” “Shut up Ross” he is told “The word Dr really means something in a place like this”
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: To fundamentalists, the word "science" is like a red flag to a bull. It makes the fundamentalist want to see blood. To avoid them wanting my blood, I employ the words "understanding" and "techologogy" and "researcher" or "student". I write about a process for understanding and people who are fixated on "science" tell me, "You deceiver. You copied the scientific process." Neither side can recognize neutrality. Perhaps they are more pleased with conflict than with peace.
        Other than to quote a person, I see no need for the word "science." For example, if you want to quote Albert Einstein, a person who subjected his work to understand the universe to religion, you cannot escape "science". However, even in my own text, I cannot escape the word "religion."
        Phil
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: I would suggest Bianca, that you stopped for a second giving me more reasons to despite your group of misinformed creationists. Karl Popper proposed that scientific hypotheses should take a falsifiable form. This is very different to just "made up" in the way you imply.

        One more implication of the insistence on falsifiability is that once a hypothesis is proposed, other scientists, and the proponent herself, would attempt to prove the hypothesis false. That does not sound at all like chanting in agreement, does it?

        Thus, I suggest that, before opening your mouth to say things taken from creationist demagogues, you checked somewhere else to see what Karl Popper really proposed, or how scientists really get to agree that something deserves the right to be called a theory, and so on. This way you would avoid being labeled as an ignorant and/or as a liar. This way we would at least save a bit of the conflict that this conversation is about. The self-confidence and self-righteousness with which you hold your misinformation is the main problem. You are so proud of it that you don't even try and check to see if what you have been told corresponds to reality. If you are going to describe Karl Popper and scientists, then check Karl Popper and scientists. Not creationist propaganda about them.

        Amen.
        • thumb
          Sep 16 2011: Under people there are all kinds.
          In Holland they recently exposed a leading professor psychology for making up many experiments and publishing results from it that supported his theory.
          A bit in analogy with Bianca.
          Their self-confidence and self-esteem is that much depending on their beliefs that when those are threatened their existence of self is as well.
        • Sep 16 2011: "I would suggest Bianca, that you stopped for a second giving me more reasons" - Good idea you haven't done anything with the numbers and reasons I've given you already, you don't seem to into numbers and reasoning sort of stuff. You've continually called my numbers mis-ifo and stuff like that without ever once showing why.
          Maybe your calculator works differently from mine - or maybe it is the same and you don't like the answer it shows.
          You can do a thousand and posts telling me how beneath contempt I am or one post showing me how my simple-to-calculate numbers are wrong - you've chosen the former - fishy or what ?
          "Karl Popper proposed that scientific hypotheses should take a falsifiable form"- That's good now you've caught up with the "scientific hypotheses" stuff which is posh talk for "made up".
          "Falsifiable" means the Consensus holds this made up stuff to be true until it is proved to be false You'll hear phrases like "current thinking is ..." and "Scientists think that...".
          Most lay people have no idea that this is what is now called "science", most lay people, (and maybe even yourself at the beginning of this debate) think that science is stuff the scientists have proved true, now
          you know it's "made up stuff they haven't yet proved false" you can see my claim that the same word "science" should not be used for both of these totally different things. In terms of the technical practicalities of getting this Popper science system to 'work at all' the problem is that when an Hypothesis has been around for a while a lot of stuff gets invested in it as if it's a proven truth.
        • Sep 16 2011: When the evidence for the falsification finally turns up it puts a lot of noses out of joint and you then have to contend with not just the technical questions challenged but the politics inside the Science world, the scientific grant world, the $millions put into the science museums and TV shows on "popular science" with their famous presenters and reputations relying on the hypothesis holding ... it's quite a bolder to move. Institutionally, the science world is set up for part one of Popper : the “making it up” and agreeing or imposing a consensus, the part of the institutional framework for having falsifications accepted is poorly developed, if at all, especially so in this field
          This dating of the Oceans and Air to 30,000 years ball park is certainly one of these things. There are no two ways about it Atheists have jumped on the evolution horse and have invested very heavily in it as well, and to form they are here telling me how horrible I am as a person and how they could not even think about getting their calculators out to be bothered to look at the technical issues – Now that’s faith ! so certain are they in their belief that it’s not even worth to think it might not be true so no need to check just go straight at the heretics – that Faith is based on “made up stuff” – poshly called “scientific consensus” – As I said at the start Atheism is a faith it’s a belief… it’s a religion.
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: Frans,

        Well, of course there are all kinds of people everywhere, but you are adding unnecessary noise to this exchange. It is one thing a dishonest scientist making up data and publications, it is quite another to accuse the scientific community of just making things up while every other scientist chants in agreement because, according to the misinformation, Popper's philosophy of science requires this to be so. In Bianca's version of science, we should have just applauded to that professor and chant in agreement.

        I hope my point was much clearer than that, and that you don't suppose that I was talking about self-confidence as in self-esteem, but about the attitude of complete certainty these creationists display when talking about things they were told by someone on a pulpit, while ignoring the information available our there for everyone to check. Bianca could check what Popper was really about, but no, she assumed that every misconception, no matter how preposterous, is absolute and irrefutable truth. I can't believe the nerve ("nerve" should have been the word to use instead of "self-confidence" my mistake) of coming here and tell a real-life scientist that his work is just about making things up while everybody else chants in agreement.
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: [I have erased the original of this post because it is out of topic, and might be deleted again. I would like to try something though. Bianca, if Kevin is willing to consider an experiment between you and me solving but one of your misconceptions, just one, to see if there is any hope for solving at least part of this conflict. Would you accept to try it Bianca? Do you like the idea of an experiment Kevin?

        If so, I suggest we try to solve the Popper-misinformed interpretation that you hold. Let me both of you know if this is acceptable, both for you Bianca to accept discussing this "problem" and Kevin to accept it as part of the conversation. Bianca, you can still say no if you don't agree with the rules, which, we can agree on after I know if you are interested and Kevin willing to make it part of the conversation. I would start by saying what I think you mean, and then, after you agree that such thing is what you meant, we start. I will be open and try hard not to add irony nor insults.

        Let me know Bianca and Kevin.]

        [Bianca, as for answers to your ocean problem, it was answered. Seems like you did not scroll down enough. Somebody even posted a link to an answer. Search for "ocean" and you should find it. Also remember that most of our other conversation was deleted, so you did not see that I answered a lot more of your claims.]
        • Sep 17 2011: Hi Gabo, I missed the ocean link thing earlier today and spotted it later in the evening – too many lines of debate in different places with someone deleting stuff as quick as we post it (sub-ideal conditions). I saw it then had to go and have to have a stiff drink before I read it, wll I was off out anyway, but Paradigm, world view changing articles are quite stressful, but I’ve just read is and.. it turned out to be a damp squid – I replied above.
          Just because this article was a useless (but very confident and full of ‘nerve’) it does not mean that I am right (but the article does have a good picture sketch on the ‘lack of the salt cycle’ in case people didn’t get what I was saying).
          I guess you haven’t read the link Carlin posted, and I suspect if you did you wouldn’t want to pin your colours on it’s mast. But the questions it tries and fails to answer are the questions I am asking you.
        • Sep 17 2011: The thing is : the Oceans are 30,000 years old or not is independent of how nice a person I am or otherwise, independent of even the very existence of Karl Popper or not. If we go for your experiment : “I suggest we try to solve the Popper-misinformed interpretation that you hold” – then if we had a million people watching this debate most would switch off as we are now off to “angels on a pin head” neck‘o the woods.
          I’m pretty good at this sort of debate and if I beat you it will only prove I’m a clever cloggs. I already know I’m a clever cloggs, what I don’t know, and what me and everyone else reading this is interested in is this :
          I’ve pointed out
          1) There is no Salt cycle so salination rates can be used as a rough guide to date of the oceans to 30,000 years – not enough time for evolution as we know it.
          2) There is no Helium cycle in the atmosphere so Helium increases can be used as a rough guide to date the air to 30,000 years – not enough time for evolution as we know it.
          I did a few other major points as well but these will do for now – If I “beat you” on these then this will more show how weak Neo-Darwinism is rather than how clever I am compared to you or otherwise – So the question is : Do you or anyone else have a valid refutation of these 2 points ?
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2011: I did not understand Bianca, so you rather not discuss the Popper thing? It is not about beating you or me, it is about showing whether we can communicate and get to an agreement. I am no debater. I care about truth, not about rhetoric.

        How could we determine that either of us is right, rather than who has the most rhetorical skill? You will insist that there is no salt cycle (did you add helium just in case?), I will insist and name processes taking salt out. That's it. No way for anybody, you, me, any reader, to verify if the salt going in is cancelled out by the salt going out or not. This is why I chose something people would understand once the reasons for Popper to propose falsifiability came out. It is philosophy, and for that all you have to do is think (well, I am dramatizing, but it is within most people's reach). If we went for salt in salt out, the only possible final point would be who do you trust more, actual geologists/oceanographers, or a bunch of creationist maniacs. We really don't want to get there. Actually that's it. Let's save time: I trust the scientists. See? Nothing else to say. We come back to whether there is a good reason not to trust the scientists, and that goes back to loads of stupidity about denying gods in unrighteousness, and goes nowhere. But Popper could go somewhere. Also, I finally understood where your misinterpretation comes from (yes, I was paying attention).

        You get the idea? I don't care nor want to beat you on a debate, I want to find out if communication is feasible or not (the topic of this conversation). To that end, I can show you why falsifiability. But if you think salt in salt out works, tell me how exactly would we determine truth. Surely you don't think that the best rhetoric would determine truth (?!).

        But I am open if you think there is something else that does not end in who you trust more. Also something that would not take forever.

        Please focus. Just one post.
        • Sep 17 2011: I did not understand Bianca, so you rather not discuss the Popper thing ? I’m not against it but it’s rather low down the list, the salt and the Helium were busy building up before Popper was born.
          “It is not about beating you or me, it is about showing whether we can communicate and get to an agreement”. “Imagine we could communicate and get to an agreement on Popper” so what ? the salt and the Helium were busy building up before Popper was born – it’s a bit of a side show
          “You will insist that there is no salt cycle (did you add helium just in case?)”- I added Helium to show that there are more of these type of dating techniques and there may be others I don’t know about. On a debate like this it’s best to do one at a time but I wanted to show it’s not sea salt or bust. And these are easy to think about and work out with a Calculator.
          “I will insist and name processes taking salt out. That's it” – brill ! do that then we can have nice and easy meat and potatoes – if you divide this number by that debate that everyone can follow and see the relevance of.
          “No way for anybody, you, me, any reader, to verify if the salt going in is cancelled out by the salt going out or not” – well then we can look at that - they are always measuring this and that in the ocean and with satellites and every month they have better techniques as you are a scientist you can ask your mates in the Oceanography dept to give you the latest data.
          “the only possible final point would be who do you trust more, actual geologists/oceanographers, or a bunch of creationist maniacs.” – I’d go for the data
          on salt levels provided by the oceanographers – I’m not interested in their interpretation of the data as this will essentially be asking them to explain to me the current consensus paradigm and this is a bit circular in terms of our current debate
        • Sep 17 2011: “But if you think salt in salt out works, tell me how exactly would we determine truth” – we get a time line of data on salt concentrations and see what it shows. Last time I did this it showed there was no equilibrium, that it want up every year so then we extrapolate backwards and we’ve done it. You can then say well something else unknown may happen now and then that reverses it and I’ll say yes it might do but it must happen rather a lot in the last 4.6 Billion years and be quite dramatic for the current – un-reversed trend to show 30,000 years. At this point we have a very simple, very powerful, difficult to explain away without appeals to unkown de-salination things. At that point maybe we can look at the Helium and other things like that. Then Atheists can’t say “Scientists have proved the Earth is ancient” they have to say “There is strong evidence to suppose the air and water are quite young”- they can still have no God and can have the planet seeded by Aliens and asteroids… and maybe new theories but they loose their “Science” and will maybe realise more that theirs is a faith.
          I’m not against doing Popper per se – it sounds like you have something interesting to say on it and I’m now interested to know what it is. “Only one post” do you want to do Popper in one post ? – Ok go on then, but philosophy debates are frequently decided on linguistic and rhetorical skills but give it a quick go if you want.
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2011: No Bianca, I did not want to do Popper in one post. I wanted to exchange with you one post at a time to decide on something to talk about and see if we can communicate and "minimize the conflict." As for the data. Of course I meant I trust the data. But the problem is how do we verify the data? Data comes from we evil scientists, so, by your rhetoric, we would be just making the data up and chanting in agreement, remember? I can tell you, among other things, of salt deposits (due to evaporites) that put the age of the oceans way back into billions of years. That's data. The problem is: why would you believe such data? Why would anybody reading this believe the data? Do you see this or not? Same for Helium, How do you know it does not get out and what kind of data would you believe if I mentioned it to you? I can tell you of a couple things taking helium out (one of them "dramatic"), but then what? Will you just believe me that such processes exist? I doubt it.

        Also, I don't understand how Popper is a side point if you come again and again to "they would just give me the made up consensus," which comes from your misunderstanding of falsifiability, which is the Popper thing. Please explain how is it a side point. I truly want to understand. If we did work our falsifiability it would not take just one post. We would go through the reasoning behind falsifiability. One step at a time. If time allows, because I bet it would be hard to keep you focused.
        • Sep 17 2011: “how do we verify the data? – they are always dipping stuff n the ocean to test this
          And that so the latest data must be out there somewhere.
          If you are working in a Uni then you might get access to Google Academic which might have lots of this data.
          “I can tell you, among other things, of salt deposits (due to evaporites) that put the age of the oceans way back into billions of years. That's data – “Yes this is the sort of stuff that I like and makes sense… and gets us somewhere : you can’t C14 date salt so you can’t say it’s age (and if salt mines like in Russian and Cheshire were due to oceans evaporating they would be full of dead sea creatures so it looks like they are not formed from Ocean evaporates either – In this can you see how the paradigm, the consensus comes first and the facts that fail to back it up – which in a proper Popperian World – would challenge the paradigm to be re-worked - are instead ignored. I don’t mind a quick one but lots of posts on Popper will get us no where.
          I prefer evidence based science – Get the data and see what the data tells us. The salt is the way to go
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2011: Bianca,

        1. Well, you are not certain that there are no creatures trapped in there.
        2. You do not know if while the water was evaporating larger dead life forms could not have been degraded by microbes.
        3. Thus you don't know how abundant should creatures be in there (maybe you said "full of" for pure rhetorical effect,)
        4. You do not know if there is organic material in those salt deposits
        5. That you can't C14 something does not mean you can't determine its age. The age of salt crystals can be determined if the crystals contain other isotopes useful for radiometry and by determining the age of igneous rocks where the salt is trapped.

        I would think that if scientists have determined that the Cheshire salt mines are huge evaporite deposits they have data to support such thing (Cheshire and Russia are not the only huge salt evaporite deposits). I doubt they would just make this up. So this boils down again to trusting that scientists know what they are doing or not. Which you don't, but I do. I do because I know we don't just make things up. You do not because you think, out of your ignorance, lack of scientific training, and misinterpretation of Popper, that science is about making things up. So, salt seems to be a dead-end. You will be handwaving salt-going-out and we will get nowhere. So? Do you still think that salt is the way to go? Remember, I am not debating you. I want to test if we can communicate. Apparently only a little tiny bit (so far). But can we agree on something? That's the real challenge.

        And you went again to your Popperian thing. Sure that it is just a side-point? Sure that salt-clocks could lead us to agree on anything? Even if the agreement were that salt were an open question? (In other words, since you don't know how the age of these salt deposits is determined, nor how they know it comes from evaporites, you should be open to being wrong about this, right? Not conclusive, but open. Right?)
        • Sep 17 2011: "Even if the agreement were that salt were an open question? (In other words, since you don't know how the age of these salt deposits is determined, nor how they know it comes from evaporites, you should be open to being wrong about this, right? Not conclusive, but open. Right?) " - Right...if you mean I can't date the salt mines and neither can anyone as they have no dateable material.
          If you can't C14 something then you can't tell it's age for old things because C14 has a known start point : when the creature dies. If a cat gets trapped and dies 5 years ago in a 10,000 year old rock you can't date the cat at 10,000 because of the stuff around it – that was already old to start with. If the salt contains well salts and some were radioactive - you can't 'start the clock' when the crystal is formed, any radioactive material was radioactive and was decaying before the crystal was formed - it's a fundamental weakness/flaw/error in non-C14 dating techniques. So an Old Earther cannot say “Science has proved the ancient date of the Earth”, all they can say is that it is the current scientific consensus that the Earth is ancient but they can’t prove it. The thing is when you ask a scientist why they think this when they can't prove it, after a bit of debate about it, it usually comes out that Scientists assume there is no God and it was all created by accident and this needs a long time to do - Atheism is an assumption baked into the core of the modern Scientific Consensus in this area. “Science”, in this area, is a branch of the religion Atheism, so it’s no evidence to say Science backs Atheism when this branch of science is based on it – it’s circular
          When I told you about this salt in the sea stuff did you say “wow that’s interesting, if it’s true it’s a game changer” or did you think “This must be wrong because it clashes with my what belief, faith in science, faith in Atheism ?” A good real scientist is always on the look out for a falsifier.
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2011: I meant that the most I can expect is to agree that "salt is an open question," because I can't prove to you that dating is possible and that these things were deposited as evaporites other than refer to scientific data that you won't trust anyway. But I will not say that scientists can't measure something I know they can. I just know I can't convince you. Thus? Agreed that salt is open then? Have we succeed at communicating on this point?

        There is more to radiometry than C14 and starting points. It is not about how much radioactivity is left, but how much of an isotope has transformed into a "daughter" element, and some basic knowledge about how crystals form. You would measure ratios of parent and daughter elements. You do this for as many elements as you can to cross check (consult a good book for more).

        I have never seen any scientist come down after some debate to "this is the scientific consensus from assuming there is no gods." Thus you are either lying, or have "debated" quite unprepared "scientists." I just showed you that you have no idea about dating by radiometry other than your elementary-school/creationist-propaganda-impregnated C14 assumptions. Will you admit your mistake or consult a creationist web-site for a reply from somebody else's pedestal of ignorance?

        When you told me about your salt "problem" I thought, "Which crackpot did she get this from?" Why? Not because it "clashed" with my "beliefs," but because the first thing I read from you was that we scientists just make things up, and other things I knew you were wrong about. If you were misinformed about all the things I knew, why should I have expected you to be well informed about other scientific stuff? However, I checked. I found nothing even suggesting you could be right, but found that you were clearly both quite outdated and wrong. You did not even agree with the creationist propaganda (60 million, not 30 thousand years). That was indeed a surprise.
        • Sep 17 2011: "other than refer to scientific data that you won't trust anyway" - no no I find that most Scientific data is pretty good, it's the scientific interpretation of the data that I often have an issue with. So I'm quite happy with scientists dating Dino flesh at 20,000 years old using C14 dating, I'm less convinced when they say well "a priori we know it's 65,000,000 years old so the C14 results must result from recent contaminations.
          "salt is open then? " yes salt in salt mines of course – it can’t be dated.
          "There is more to radiometry than C14 than and starting points".
          - well it's a major feature that gives it a credibility that the other techniques do not have. So it's not to be underestimated by declaration.
          "You would measure ratios of parent and daughter elements You do this for as many elements as you can to cross check (consult a good book for more). You can "cross check" - usually defaulting to "circular referencing" till Kingdom come : If you don't know how much of the parent and daughter were their at the start of your dating no amount of looking at the present combination will do you any good at all - you can be off my billions of years - it's a major fundamental flaw of all of these techniques except C14 dating which starts when the thing dies.
          Think of it this way : if Uranium dating proved I was right - because I showed you a lump of Uranium for which only 30,000 years of decay into lead was present you'd say hang on how can you show something as flaky as that ! - and you'd be right.
        • Sep 18 2011: "I have never seen any scientist come down after some debate to "this is the scientific consensus from assuming there is no gods." - yes you have ! you did a post yourself showing 'reputable scientists" saying there must be something else going on otherwise the World's oceans would be like the Dead Sea by now if the Earth was billions of years old... this is derived from assuming "there is no gods" and it's all an accident at base.

          "I just showed you that you have no idea about dating by radiometry"
          - no you haven't, having a start point is vital to any dating - only C14 has this. It’s simple, if you have the end amounts, the start amounts and the rate then you can work out the age – if you miss any of theses you don’t have biscuit, not matter how much you cross reference other “missing one” techniques you do.

          "but because the first thing I read from you was that we scientists just make things up" if you have heard of Popper's 'Conjecture and Refutation' then the word Conjecture means "making things up".

          "However, I checked. I found nothing even suggesting you could be right" just how did those respected scientists explain how millions upon millions of salt wash- ed into the seas every day for thousands of years gets back out of the sea ? - all they said is it ‘must’ happen somehow if the Earth is really old - that's not science that's an assumption re-worded as a conclusion – so you did find evidence : If there were huge salt monsters that ate salt then they would show us, their lack of showing us salt monsters shows they haven’t got a clue how to get rid of this much salt time and time again.

          "You did not even agree with the creationist propaganda (60 million, not 30 thousand years). That was indeed a surprise." - not to me I just plonk numbers in a calculator and see what the answer is.
      • thumb
        Sep 18 2011: I am sorry Bianca, but now not only you added loads and loads of further creationist propaganda. You openly lied about what I said, here to my own face. It is right there for anybody who might be reading to confirm. They can check what I actually said, and your twisted interpretations right here. I show one place where a lot of the salt has gone (enough to put oceans back into billions of years old), and you twist it into an exchange about the age of the salt then turn and say that nobody told you where any of the salt has gone? Clever but nauseatingly dishonest.

        Further example, instead of checking what I said about dating you just twisted the few words you got from what I said to insist on you being right about C14. You did not bother to actually learn about radiometry. Seems like dating with several isotopes and getting the same answer does not impress you because you don't understand ratios besides not understanding half-lives and the math required to dealing with them. Might be words too big for you. Oh, sorry, it must be "made up" stuff. That must be your definition of made up: whatever Bianca does not care to understand. You rather hold to your ignorance than admit that there was something you were not considering or that you do not understand. Keep "plonking" numbers to your cereal-box calculator. That seems to be the extent of your scientific knowledge. I see and confirm that there is no diminishing conflicts with the likes of yourself. You are, after all, just a despicable rhetorical creationist tool. A thing that you will be happy to confirm as an answer to this my last message to you. As an exercise about the theme of the conversation it worked. So I consider it done. I tried, but lying about what I said, to my face, is too much.

        There you have it Kevin. There is good reason for the conflict. I openly admit that I am polarized. But I became polarized because of the kinds of rhetorics and dishonesty displayed by the likes of Bianca.

        Adios.
        • Sep 18 2011: ""I show one place where a lot of the salt has gone (enough to put oceans back into billions of years old), " - wow you are ahead of the respected Oceanographers on this point, All they can say is there "must be a long term salt equlibrium" - which means since know records dating back to the 1800's the salt has been increasing and so in the short term they've never seen equlibrium - but you have.
          In terms of using ratios in non-C14 dating that mainly means calibtrating one inadaquate technique by another and is not worth anything at all. All you'll see coming out of the end is the assumptions put in at the start to make up for the inadaquacy of the technique - you call this science - I call it making it up. Plonking numbers in calculators is something you might try it helps to give you a better feel of ball park big numbers
        • Sep 19 2011: Bianca,

          I believe you said earlier that science can be classified as either true science or made up science. Evidently that's false. Seeing as to how once a theory or hypothesis is formulated there has to be consensus among scientists concerning a specific subject. Ask yourself what would be the point for them making stuff up? More in depth perhaps the problem is syntax. What science? It is the study of the physical or natural world using observation and experiment; hence scientific method. The creation story when scrutinized through this method is obviously false. I honestly think Gabo tried his best in informing us about the whole salt cycle in relation to the Earth's oceans (something I do not know the likes of). More to the point he shows how rigorous science can be. But let's say hypothetically he is wrong? What gives you the authority to be right? Unless of course your an expert in the field than perhaps it would be wise to be leave this entire discussion to the scientific community that dwell on these questions.

          Consensus that has been reached among different scientific inquiries are laid bare when in observance of the real world. The computer every Tedster uses to comment on, I would say, polemic subjects is the product of the scientific method. The same can be said just about everything, whether that be our car we use to commute to work everyday or our smartphones. How else have we advanced as a species?

          Even if a few scientists did make up facts for whatever reasons (even though that would lay bare the stupidity of why they would) they would be scrutinized by the entire scientific community.

          The back and forth between you and Gabo is a demonstration of why I began the conversation in the first place. I see countless examples of people who honor their religion, and I don't blame them, but when faced with true empirical evidence of inconsistencies in their belief system they just ignore it and try to find solace. And atheist's render them ignorant.
        • Sep 19 2011: But I am optimistic. In time I believe things will begin to unwind.

          ...........

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.