Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Xtremehobo

How to avoid going to church and Christianity discussion

This topic is 5866 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I do not have blind faith in science, I do in fact question my beliefs. I do not believe that evolution in it''s current theory is correct. I believe something like it occured, but not exactly it. I don''t believe in string theory. I don''t believe in life on Mars. I am skeptical about the origins of the universe. I am skeptical about the big bang. Because one science is not correct or may not be correct does not invalidate all of science. With religion, that may happen, because religion believes to hold absolute truths. But then again, you can''t disprove religion, so it''s just as valid a theory as science. Yes I said theory.



Gamedev for learning.
libGDN for putting it all together.
An opensource, cross platform, cross API game development library.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
No, radioactive decay is completely diferent to evaporation unless in a closed system .

If the evaporating water is kept in a sealed container, then we can calculate the amount of water vapour in the air, and calculate the original amount of water pretty accurately. If the system is not closed, the water evaporates away and you are correct in saying we have no way of determining the amount of water in the glass originally.

The same goes for radioactive decay, only this time the amount of stable isotopes is used, not the amount of water. Radioactive decay by its very nature is a closed system, whereas water evaporation usually is not.

I have a feeling I''m being trolled here, as I find it hard to accept anyone who is not mentally retarded could not comprehend such a simple situation. I think I may sit this one out for a bit, before I die of laughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDITED



Gamedev for learning.
libGDN for putting it all together.
An opensource, cross platform, cross API game development library.

[edited by - CpMan on May 1, 2003 11:11:40 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:

So how do you know you have a correct "sample" which accuratly represents the original?



Take a 1g sample from a rock what weighs 1 kg. How many atoms do you think are in that sample?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by CpMan
Well, you don't need a 100,000 year experiment. Radioactive isotopes decay at know rates, sometimes extremely stable. It's only logical to extend it further in time. Here, I'll relate it to Christianity. According to the Bible, God created the world universe and the world in 6 days, correct? He created the animals of the earth. The Bible does not mention viruses and bacteria, or other single celled organisms directly, but you extend the text in your mind to ecompass those because it seems only logical to you. Which is perfectly fine.



Gamedev for learning.
libGDN for putting it all together.
An opensource, cross platform, cross API game development library.


Thats not science, its logical interpretation. I understand the decaying of unstable substances, but ALL the results I have seen are inconclusive at best. I remember doing an experiment in physics measuring the decay of fast decaying substances, it was supposed to decay exponentially, no ones did, but the teacher said "Thats fine, close enough". It was no where near exponential. The law of averages would have prevented (to a liklihood of 1:some very large number) such high margins of error, but it diddn't.

I'm not convinced A: at the complete (averaged) exponential deterioration of substances over 100,000 years because of all the things that change in their surroundings during that time (yes I know heat has nothing to do with it usually), and B: at the accuracy of the methods and equipment that people are using.

I have never seen any significant evidence that these are in fact good dating methods, but I have seen plenty of evidence against it. As much as I dislike it, I realise the FACT that many scientists want their theories to work, so they... help them out a little here and there. My father and grandfather are great examples of people that go ballistic if any of their "scientific methods" are in question, and they are not the only ones, not by a long shot.

Fact is, people have too much emotion for science generally, and when they don't, their ideas wont get listened to for at least 50 years, if ever.

If you respond to my post, respond as a whole, I wont even bother replying to you in any respectable manner if you attack one part of it out of context in order to let yourself get to sleep tonight. If the previous was an insult to you, or made you uncomfortable, then it probably applies directly to you. Sleep well. .sen

edit: by the way, I realise the experiment in physics was probably errored due to the equipment, setup, etc etc etc and not related directly to the decaying of the atoms being unreliable in that experiment, but it is just another example of an experiment that proves nothing, for whatever reason it failed, it did. .sen

[edited by - Senses777 on May 1, 2003 4:57:59 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I have a feeling I''m being trolled here"

Course you do. Anybody who doubts you is obviously a troll because you''re such a genious.

"I do not have blind faith in science"

You said you did when you said that science wouldn''t use inaccurate dating methods.

"Radioactive decay by its very nature is a closed system"

No, it''s not. The rate of decay is a rediculously blind assumption assuming it takes billions of years for one element to change into another with a sample time of not even 100 years.

And elements in nature can seriously screw up the ratios. Rocks do not decay in a vacuum. Therefore it is by nature NOT a closed system.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not a troll, so I will respect your request. And then I will go to sleep.

I agree with you, dating methods are circumstantial in that you have to draw the line somewhere on how much you are going to scrutinize it. But for the record, this is good enough for the purposes of most science.

Yes, I do in fact believe that with science comes emotion that might alter the "facts" a little. But then again, that''s what other thoeries are for..to balance things out.

But religion is the same way. Would Christianity have spread as far and wide as it did if it did not command the emotion of the people? If it dictated that "Ye shall be stone faced stoics all of the time. No emotion," would it have spread? No, it would be basically the same thing as saying "You will not talk about fight club."





Gamedev for learning.
libGDN for putting it all together.
An opensource, cross platform, cross API game development library.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Take a 1g sample from a rock what weighs 1 kg. How many atoms do you think are in that sample?"

What does that have to do with anything?

What if 500kg of the original sample was decayed and 500kg wasn''t but .25g of the sample was decayed while .75 was not? How do you even know that the 50/50 of the "original" is an accurate representation?

How do you know the isotopes are distributed exactly and were not affected by outside sources during it''s "million years" on earth?

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:

No, it''s not. The rate of decay is a rediculously blind assumption assuming it takes billions of years for one element to change into another with a sample time of not even 100 years.



???
Billions of years? I have no idea what you are talking about. By sample time, do you really mean half life, or something completely diferent?

quote:

edit: by the way, I realise the experiment in physics was probably errored due to the equipment, setup, etc etc etc and not related directly to the decaying of the atoms being unreliable in that experiment, but it is just another example of an experiment that proves nothing, for whatever reason it failed, it did. .sen



Guess what, I had an experiment in organic chemistry last year which failed. So did most of the rest of the classes, too. It was relating to the fractional distillation of substances from crude oil.

Guess petroleum is a myth, eh?

quote:

Course you do. Anybody who doubts you is obviously a troll because you''re such a genious.



No, the principle is so simple to understand, that I find it hard to see how anyone could compare radioactive decay to evaporation of water.

quote:

And elements in nature can seriously screw up the ratios. Rocks do not decay in a vacuum. Therefore it is by nature NOT a closed system.



Got a link to that? Any real evidence that elements not present in the sample from the beginning just don''t form traces which are irrelevant? Or is it complete bullshit, again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by KalvinB
"Take a 1g sample from a rock what weighs 1 kg. How many atoms do you think are in that sample?"

What does that have to do with anything?

What if 500kg of the original sample was decayed and 500kg wasn''t but .25g of the sample was decayed while .75 was not? How do you even know that the 50/50 of the "original" is an accurate representation?

How do you know the isotopes are distributed exactly and were not affected by outside sources during it''s "million years" on earth?

Ben


Why would one isotope know when another is about to decay? Radioactive decay is about the most random process you can ascertain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 5866 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!