Global warming theory assumes that a change in a realitivly insignificant greenhouse gas will effect the temperature enough to increase the amount of water vapor in the air. The water vapor is then assumped to cause a runaway chain reaction by increasing the temperature and allowing more water vapor to be adsorbed by the air.
Wrong. No mainstream scientist is proposing that a runaway chain reaction will occur. Everybody knows that there are lots of positive and negative feedback loops in operation.
It's far more likely that the earth will warm to a new equilibrium temperture.
I'm a New Zealander, and the Maori (your spelling is fine) were about as warlike as they come pre-European arrival. They didn't have their butts kicked too seriously by the Europeans (and did some some seriously butt kicking themselves in places like Gate Pa (link).
The original poster may be refering to an event like Pirihaka, where a tribe of Christian Maori adopted a theory of non-violent resistance (similar to Gandhi's) in 1881. However, the colonial authorities brutally destroyed the community.
If we did find earth like bacteria, it wouldn't nesscessaryly mean that probes put them there. Perhaps a impact on earth blasted a rock (containing earth bacteria) into space, where eventually they reached Venus. Kind of a Mars bacteria in reverse.
Global warming is as real today was the next "ice age" was 20 years ago. Either is possible, neither is certain, and there's very little we can do about either.
Rubbish. Can you name a single peer reviewed scientific paper from 20 years which mentions a ice age (not ones on long term global cooling). Whereas, the science of global warming has hundreds (maybe thousands) of scientific papers used in support of it.
but the climate, in the grand scheme of things, is the same today as it was 20 years ago. The fact that some people are now talking about global warming reflects a knee-jerk reaction to events that happen on a geological timescale.
Not true. The earth's surface is hotter than what it was 20 years ago.
The 9/11 attacks were awful, but if there is one good thing that has come out of the War on Terror it is that no-one has really cared about the whole "global warming" debate in about a year. It's been demoted to its proper level of importance.:)
Is the US news (assuming of course, that you are a American) incredibly different to the Australian news? Because global warming has been all over the Aussie media over the last year.
Temperatures as recorded by satellites show no change above that suggested by the 11-year sun spot cycle.
And your scientific peer reviewed evidence for this is?
So, we have evidence of no change recently,
Rubbish.
Land based tempertures have steadly increased over the last 50 years (by approx. 0.1 K/10 years). This increase is still noted when urban heat islands are taken into account.
Sea surface temperture has also steadly increased.
Deep sea measurements of ocean temperture have also shown a increase in temperture over time.
A increase in the infrared absorption spectra of the atmosphere has been observed.
Northern Hemisphere annual snow-cover extent (SCE) has decreased by approx. 10% since 1966, as observed by satellite.
Over the last 30 years the Northern Hemisphere sea-ice extent has also decreased.
The sea ice thickness in the Arctic was measured by military subs from the 50's to the 70's. When it was remeasured in the 90's, a large drop (approx. 40%) was observed.
Near surface perefrost in the Northern Hemisphere has also been observed dropping over time.
This is just a quick review of some indicators of temperture which all point towards a increase in surface tempertures.
and massive evidence of great change in pre-history.
The increase in temperture has been incrediblely quick when compared with past natural temperture changes.
From this you conclude that man is helping current change?
Him and the vast majority of the worlds climatical scientists.
The point of the troll is that a significant majority of environmentalists are proponents of the idea that nature can do no wrong and industrialized humanity can do no good.
But do they really believe this?
As far as I can tell, no important environmentalist makes this arguement.
Small minor point, various creationists have disagreed with virtually every scientific field at one time or another. Geology, physics, chemistry astronmy have all been attacked in the past.
Re:It's a problem if Ashcroft's anywhere near it..
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2
Interesting enough the scientist who made the discovers about adult stem cells verstility was recently touring Australia promoting embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because contary to popular belief, her research is being badly distorted.
How many scientists are saying "embryonic cells are the only hope"? Most see adult and embryonic stem cell research to be complimentry technologies.
As for focusing attention on technolgies with demonstrated practical application, this isn't how science is done. It would be the equilivent of our ancestors stopping research into the automobile, because the horse and buggy has immediate practical applications.
Why not make additional investments in the areas of research that are already bearing fruit, rather than get enmired in a debate about whether using those cells is efficient & effective, or if it is killing people.
Why not invest in both technologies, and if their is a moral arguement against one, make the moral arguement, not sidestep it by distorting science.
And on a sidenote, thank you for kind offer, but I'm really not looking for any form of salvation.
Re:It's a problem if Ashcroft's anywhere near it..
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 1
Cool, I suspected that our viewpoints weren't that fair apart.
Re:Political Agendas In Science Nothing New
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2
In the last few years there have been a number of "government" scientists discovered planting evidence that "proves" endangered species existed in certain areas in order to prevent logging or housing development, etc.
Do you have any sources for this?
As far as I'm concerned, any scientist or engineer working for the government is either actively or unwittingly pursuing a political agenda. And the most conspicuosly egregious example of this has been the agenda of the leftist religion of environmentalism.
While environmental science has more than it's fair share of well meaning cranks, it does have a solid scientific base. Of course this allows the lobby groups to attack the cranks, and then via. guilt by association slander the scientists, while meanwhile peddling their own peusdoscience (The skeptical environmentalist, is perhaps the most recent example).
Re:It's a problem if Ashcroft's anywhere near it..
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2
Firstly, I'm not a Christian, and I have no problems with stem cell research. However, I think that any debate should include those who have strong moral views on the subject. Some science should be reviewed on it's ethics.
However, what annoys me, is when people with a moral arguement try to strengthen it but distorting science (such as playing up adult stem cells (which are good, but aren't all that)).
Interesting, Soviet agriculture under Stalin was held back by the communists using politically correct "science", rather than facing reality. If politics increases it's role in determining what's science and what's not, then the US could suffer accordingly.
Neither of those statements which I made are criteria.
Well I could see that the first could be a ad hominem (however, can you name a single radiodate from a young earther which is good enough to pass peer review - if not, my statement stands), the second one is not. Young earthers disagree with massive amounts of modern geology (age of earth, geological column, global flood etc), to call them by the same name would not only be confusing, but let young earthers ride off the reputation of mainstream science.
There is a simple fact here: Steve Austin has a Ph.D. in geology. Are you demanding a further standard that he achieve in order to be called a geologist by you? Must he subscribe to a belief system you approve of? That certainly seems to be a reasonable interpretation of your two posts on this thread.
Look, I know you've got a ideology to defend, and I know that many from the young earth community are masters of misleading quotations, and selective use of evidence, but your "reasonable interpretation" is pretty unreasonable given that in the very post to which you replied I stated "I have no problem with Austin believing in a young earth. If he was willing to present a honest case for it, I would respect that (and him, for giving it a go). However, he hasn't. Rather he only misrepresents a scientific technique in order to score cheap brownie points." That should make it pretty clear to anybody that Austin can follow whatever belief he wants to, I just want him to put forward a honest case for it. Not the deception he puts presents.
You attack Dr. Austin, but have you read his thesis?
No, but I have read some of the reports he has published. And given that I haven't attacked him on the quality of his thesis, rather the quality of his reports, I think that it's not unfair.
Do you have a basis for attacking him other than his beliefs?
His dishonesty.
Are you aware of the solid evidence he has put forward for a young earth?
Some of it, I dear say that there is more that I haven't seen, but I get skeptic about people who use misleading statements like him.
Have you considered the published articles (in Science and in Nature) by Gentry which show a rapidly-formed earth?
Irrelevent, but yes I have considered them.
Oh by the way, in which nature or science article does his rapidly formed earth conclusion appear. To my knowledge it actually works more like this: holes in rocks (peer reviewed) - one researcher concludes that they are due to Po (peer reviewed) - that same researcher concludes that this is evidence of a rapidly formed earth (not peer reviewed).
Sticking just to the facts, if the rocks being too young to be tested were the only problem, then ALL of the rocks should have had the same age - same K and Ar levels. But the age varied by a factor of greater than an order of magnitude. That's way too big to be called a reliable method. If I took a fever temperature reading on you, and it was 37C to 370C, you'd be either perfectly healthy or a glowing ember. Clearly my temperature measurement method would be condemned as completely useless. Why then accept +/- an order of magnitude in radiometric dating?
It's a lot more complicated than what your making it out to be. Some rocks are good at certain types of radiodating, some rocks are good at other typers of radiodating, other rocks are just plain bad at it. It all depends on their makeup and history. This is well known in geology. Geologists are very careful in what rocks they date, and even then there is considerable debate about. That's science in action.
Sadly this allows some individuals with a ideological hangup to misrepresent it.
Steve Austin has a Ph.D. in geology, so he is a geologist. If his philosphical belief is towards a young earth and that disqualifies him, then atheistic geologists with a belief in an old earth should be similarly disqualified by your criteria - or is balance a problem here?
What's this about my "criteria"?
I've never told you what my criteria is, so could you not just make it up?
I have no problem with Austin believing in a young earth. If he was willing to present a honest case for it, I would respect that (and him, for giving it a go). However, he hasn't. Rather he only misrepresents a scientific technique in order to score cheap brownie points.
And given that Austin (plus all the other young earthers) disagree with pretty much all of modern geology, describing them as geologists would be a surefire way to lead to confusion.
Thank you for agreeing with me that it is a theory.
My pleasure.
A theory is not a fact (check the dictionary or a definition of the scientific process).
Correct. Theories try to explain facts.
Species changing over time (ie. evolution) have been observed, therefore evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Are you saying that you have proof that a species has evolved into a completely new species?
Yes.
This is breaking news, why isn't it on the headlines page here?
This is oh so wrong. Speciation events have been known for a long time. Creationists may live in the distant past, but science doesn't.
To help you catch up with the rest of the world you should investigate cichlid fishes, the Faroe Island mouse, goatsbeards flowers, and Rhagoletis pomonella. And that's just to get you started...
I do not accept that slight modifications of a species proves evolution. As I stated before, that happens all the time, but it is still the same species.
If a speciation event occurs, by very defination, it is not the same species.
Actually according to G. Brent Dalrymple, a geologist with the USGS, there are a number of cases where radiometric dating was very far off.
And...
Nobody denies that there are strange results, however, these occur when there is a result for the isotope compositions to be disturbed. For example, one of the early North American archeology sites is subjected to heated debate because of controversial dating due to possible carbon contamination.
Not to mention the case of Mt. St. Helens, where rocks were taken from the newly formed lava dome and K-Ar dated. They were known to be roughly 8 years old (how long the dome had been forming). Yet the labs tested them and the youngest date was over 200,000 years (oldest test date was in the millions).
Given that K-Ar dating has a lower limited on the age required for a accurate answer (which is much greater than 8 years), the person who submitted them to the labs for testing must have been either (a) clueless, or (b) only after propaganda. Not surprising that this comes out of the creationist world.
Now yes many apologists will claim that this was due to excess Argon. Of course it had to be either excess Ar or depleted K, since this is a ratio measurement. And they'll mention that the rock selected must have either heated insufficiently to achieve full Ar bleedout, or that chunks of the rock were never liquified and therefore were pockets of ancient ratios.
Which are all good reasons. Did Austin and co-workers perform Ar testing on the rocks like a geologist would? Or might that kill their little story?
Certainly the explanation is some combination of those causes. However it does bring up a significant methodological question. Since cases where the age is known result in conclusively incorrect data, even if it can be explained, why should anyone accept as accurate rocks which are from an unknown time frame? The same explanations used to excuse the immensely incorrect ratios in known-age rocks could apply to rocks with an unknown history.
Unlike creationists, geologists are extremely careful of the rocks which test. Radiodating is complex, and one must be careful in it's application.
However, what the creationists are doing is the equilivent of the trying to measure a atom with a meter ruler, failing and them claiming that all measuring equipment doesn't work.
Isn't it true that some of the methods have been falsified, and we should look for better tools?
No, it's been abused not falsified. There is a massive difference.
But evolution is a theory. It can't be proven unless (according to the scientific process) someone sees it happen. To the best of my knowledge, no one has seen anything evolve into something else. Thus it remains a theory.
This statement is so wrong in so many different ways. The first sentence is correct, but that's about it.
Evolution (along with gravity, relativity, and a spherical earth) is a theory. Whether or not they are observed, will not change their status. However, contary to creationist propaganda evolution has been observed. Both in the lab, and if the field.
I just can't understand how anyone can look at the world/universe in all of the splendor with all the mechanical and physical laws that work so tightly together and say "It just happened that way". To me that would be like saying "my computer built itself from the sands on the beach". It took intelligence to build a computer and it took even more intelligence to build the universe.
Luckly nobody is suggesting that it just happened that way. Therefore this statement is based on a misunderstanding.
However, how accurate are field conditions? Minerals move and change over such a large period of time, so how does one know when one has a representative ratio of (say) tungsten-182 and hafnium-182? A you pointed out, it was the sampling techniques that were flawed in the original estimate. How does one show that the techniques used in this sample (and others) are accurate?
There are several ways in which one can check the accuracy of radiodating in the field.
For recent (on the historical timescale) events, one can compare radiodates with historical dates. For example, radiodating lava from Pompay gives the same date as what can be derived from Romen records).
Another much more general method (as it doens't rely on other information), is compare radiodates of various techniques.
For example, the Meteorite named Saint Severin was radiodated with Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr and Ar-Ar dating. If one isotope was migrating, then one dates optained would be off, if all of the isotopes were migrating, then all of the dates would be off (they would migrate at different speeds).
However, that being said, many individual radiodates are heatly debated in the science lit., however, the accuracy of the technique as a whole is well established.
I'm doing a PhD and chemistry (and have published a handful of papers) and hence have a little bit of experience with this. By charging the authors $500 you would kill the number of papers written. The high profile work would still get published, but the less exciting stuff would remain unpublished. Because one person's boring work is another person's saviour, this would be a very bad thing.
Also, maybe it is different in other fields, but in chemistry, one doens't pay to get a article published (unless it is for colour printing etc).
I don't want to answer for the poster to whom you are replying to, but there are some flaws in your post.
As for the tax cuts hurting the economy, I'm not a economist, and don't really know a great deal about economics, so as a arguement from authority, I would like to present Paul Krugmen as person who does argue (with a straight face) that the taxcuts do hurt the economy. This NYT article [reg required etc etc etc] give some of his views on the Bush tax cuts.
Pretending this is true for a moment,
You don't need to pretend, the other posters comment "Global warming is accepted by the majority of mainstream scientists as being scientific fact" is factually correct (assuming that one assumes that s/he is talking about climatic scientists). It is the global warming skeptics who lack scientific experience (with only a handful of exceptions such as Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels).
that still doesn't mean that Kyoto is a good idea. To do that you need to show that the benefits outweigh the costs.
If you want to research more on this, I would suggest this report.
Environmentalists have not done this; instead they've resorted to the "we're all gonna die!" fear-mongering that they've been using for decades.
Perhaps you should stop basing your opinions on organisations like GreenPeace, who know how (and are willing to) play the PR game, and look at the work (preferable the peer reviewed stuff) done by environomental scientists.
Many seemingly senseless taboos have a basis in fact.
Agreed, but I feel that you are reading too much into them. They have a basis in fact, but they arne't a be all and end all.
Why is it we eat lots of herbivores (chickens, pigs, cows, etc), but we don't eat carnivores (dogs, cats, tigers, lions)? Is it because it doesn't seem "right", or because carnivores being higher up the food chain concentrate toxins?
We eat lots of herbivores because it is more efficent to. We need a heap of plant material to feed a herbivore, but if we farmed carnivores, we would need a heap of herbivores to feed the carnivores, and a truely massive amount of plant material to feed the herbivores. It's far more efficent to eat the stuff at the bottom of the food chain.
That being said, if you got your meat from hunting carnivores, it wouldn't do you any harm.
Why don't Jews eat pork? Is it because God said so, or is it because God (and his numerous assistants down here) noticed that before refrigerators you got Trichinosis from eating pork?
While pork can cause health problems, virtually every type of food (meat especially) can do the same. Why pork and not chicken? It was probably a cultural thing that got passed down through history (as far as I know, the non-eating of pork is the oldest archeology dated Jewish custom).
Slashdot Mirror
I was just wondering if you could point me towards the peer reviewed scientific journal which Humphries published his work in?
Oh wait, did the great scientist conspiracy stop him from publishing?
Global warming theory assumes that a change in a realitivly insignificant greenhouse gas will effect the temperature enough to increase the amount of water vapor in the air. The water vapor is then assumped to cause a runaway chain reaction by increasing the temperature and allowing more water vapor to be adsorbed by the air.
Wrong. No mainstream scientist is proposing that a runaway chain reaction will occur. Everybody knows that there are lots of positive and negative feedback loops in operation.
It's far more likely that the earth will warm to a new equilibrium temperture.
I'm a New Zealander, and the Maori (your spelling is fine) were about as warlike as they come pre-European arrival. They didn't have their butts kicked too seriously by the Europeans (and did some some seriously butt kicking themselves in places like Gate Pa (link).
The original poster may be refering to an event like Pirihaka, where a tribe of Christian Maori adopted a theory of non-violent resistance (similar to Gandhi's) in 1881. However, the colonial authorities brutally destroyed the community.
If we did find earth like bacteria, it wouldn't nesscessaryly mean that probes put them there. Perhaps a impact on earth blasted a rock (containing earth bacteria) into space, where eventually they reached Venus. Kind of a Mars bacteria in reverse.
Global warming is as real today was the next "ice age" was 20 years ago. Either is possible, neither is certain, and there's very little we can do about either.
:)
Rubbish. Can you name a single peer reviewed scientific paper from 20 years which mentions a ice age (not ones on long term global cooling). Whereas, the science of global warming has hundreds (maybe thousands) of scientific papers used in support of it.
but the climate, in the grand scheme of things, is the same today as it was 20 years ago. The fact that some people are now talking about global warming reflects a knee-jerk reaction to events that happen on a geological timescale.
Not true. The earth's surface is hotter than what it was 20 years ago.
The 9/11 attacks were awful, but if there is one good thing that has come out of the War on Terror it is that no-one has really cared about the whole "global warming" debate in about a year. It's been demoted to its proper level of importance.
Is the US news (assuming of course, that you are a American) incredibly different to the Australian news? Because global warming has been all over the Aussie media over the last year.
Temperatures as recorded by satellites show no change above that suggested by the 11-year sun spot cycle.
And your scientific peer reviewed evidence for this is?
So, we have evidence of no change recently,
Rubbish.
Land based tempertures have steadly increased over the last 50 years (by approx. 0.1 K/10 years). This increase is still noted when urban heat islands are taken into account.
Sea surface temperture has also steadly increased.
Deep sea measurements of ocean temperture have also shown a increase in temperture over time.
A increase in the infrared absorption spectra of the atmosphere has been observed.
Northern Hemisphere annual snow-cover extent (SCE) has decreased by approx. 10% since 1966, as observed by satellite.
Over the last 30 years the Northern Hemisphere sea-ice extent has also decreased.
The sea ice thickness in the Arctic was measured by military subs from the 50's to the 70's. When it was remeasured in the 90's, a large drop (approx. 40%) was observed.
Near surface perefrost in the Northern Hemisphere has also been observed dropping over time.
This is just a quick review of some indicators of temperture which all point towards a increase in surface tempertures.
and massive evidence of great change in pre-history.
The increase in temperture has been incrediblely quick when compared with past natural temperture changes.
From this you conclude that man is helping current change?
Him and the vast majority of the worlds climatical scientists.
The point of the troll is that a significant majority of environmentalists are proponents of the idea that nature can do no wrong and industrialized humanity can do no good.
But do they really believe this?
As far as I can tell, no important environmentalist makes this arguement.
Small minor point, various creationists have disagreed with virtually every scientific field at one time or another. Geology, physics, chemistry astronmy have all been attacked in the past.
Interesting enough the scientist who made the discovers about adult stem cells verstility was recently touring Australia promoting embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because contary to popular belief, her research is being badly distorted.
How many scientists are saying "embryonic cells are the only hope"? Most see adult and embryonic stem cell research to be complimentry technologies.
As for focusing attention on technolgies with demonstrated practical application, this isn't how science is done. It would be the equilivent of our ancestors stopping research into the automobile, because the horse and buggy has immediate practical applications.
Why not make additional investments in the areas of research that are already bearing fruit, rather than get enmired in a debate about whether using those cells is efficient & effective, or if it is killing people.
Why not invest in both technologies, and if their is a moral arguement against one, make the moral arguement, not sidestep it by distorting science.
And on a sidenote, thank you for kind offer, but I'm really not looking for any form of salvation.
Cool, I suspected that our viewpoints weren't that fair apart.
In the last few years there have been a number of "government" scientists discovered planting evidence that "proves" endangered species existed in certain areas in order to prevent logging or housing development, etc.
Do you have any sources for this?
As far as I'm concerned, any scientist or engineer working for the government is either actively or unwittingly pursuing a political agenda. And the most conspicuosly egregious example of this has been the agenda of the leftist religion of environmentalism.
While environmental science has more than it's fair share of well meaning cranks, it does have a solid scientific base. Of course this allows the lobby groups to attack the cranks, and then via. guilt by association slander the scientists, while meanwhile peddling their own peusdoscience (The skeptical environmentalist, is perhaps the most recent example).
Firstly, I'm not a Christian, and I have no problems with stem cell research. However, I think that any debate should include those who have strong moral views on the subject. Some science should be reviewed on it's ethics.
However, what annoys me, is when people with a moral arguement try to strengthen it but distorting science (such as playing up adult stem cells (which are good, but aren't all that)).
Interesting, Soviet agriculture under Stalin was held back by the communists using politically correct "science", rather than facing reality. If politics increases it's role in determining what's science and what's not, then the US could suffer accordingly.
Water is a renewable resource, and if anything, one of the must abundant on the planet. Why should we go to great pains to save water?
Try drinking salt water or urine, then you'll understand.
Neither of those statements which I made are criteria.
Well I could see that the first could be a ad hominem (however, can you name a single radiodate from a young earther which is good enough to pass peer review - if not, my statement stands), the second one is not. Young earthers disagree with massive amounts of modern geology (age of earth, geological column, global flood etc), to call them by the same name would not only be confusing, but let young earthers ride off the reputation of mainstream science.
There is a simple fact here: Steve Austin has a Ph.D. in geology. Are you demanding a further standard that he achieve in order to be called a geologist by you? Must he subscribe to a belief system you approve of? That certainly seems to be a reasonable interpretation of your two posts on this thread.
Look, I know you've got a ideology to defend, and I know that many from the young earth community are masters of misleading quotations, and selective use of evidence, but your "reasonable interpretation" is pretty unreasonable given that in the very post to which you replied I stated "I have no problem with Austin believing in a young earth. If he was willing to present a honest case for it, I would respect that (and him, for giving it a go). However, he hasn't. Rather he only misrepresents a scientific technique in order to score cheap brownie points." That should make it pretty clear to anybody that Austin can follow whatever belief he wants to, I just want him to put forward a honest case for it. Not the deception he puts presents.
You attack Dr. Austin, but have you read his thesis?
No, but I have read some of the reports he has published. And given that I haven't attacked him on the quality of his thesis, rather the quality of his reports, I think that it's not unfair.
Do you have a basis for attacking him other than his beliefs?
His dishonesty.
Are you aware of the solid evidence he has put forward for a young earth?
Some of it, I dear say that there is more that I haven't seen, but I get skeptic about people who use misleading statements like him.
Have you considered the published articles (in Science and in Nature) by Gentry which show a rapidly-formed earth?
Irrelevent, but yes I have considered them.
Oh by the way, in which nature or science article does his rapidly formed earth conclusion appear. To my knowledge it actually works more like this: holes in rocks (peer reviewed) - one researcher concludes that they are due to Po (peer reviewed) - that same researcher concludes that this is evidence of a rapidly formed earth (not peer reviewed).
Sticking just to the facts, if the rocks being too young to be tested were the only problem, then ALL of the rocks should have had the same age - same K and Ar levels. But the age varied by a factor of greater than an order of magnitude. That's way too big to be called a reliable method. If I took a fever temperature reading on you, and it was 37C to 370C, you'd be either perfectly healthy or a glowing ember. Clearly my temperature measurement method would be condemned as completely useless. Why then accept +/- an order of magnitude in radiometric dating?
It's a lot more complicated than what your making it out to be. Some rocks are good at certain types of radiodating, some rocks are good at other typers of radiodating, other rocks are just plain bad at it. It all depends on their makeup and history. This is well known in geology. Geologists are very careful in what rocks they date, and even then there is considerable debate about. That's science in action.
Sadly this allows some individuals with a ideological hangup to misrepresent it.
Steve Austin has a Ph.D. in geology, so he is a geologist. If his philosphical belief is towards a young earth and that disqualifies him, then atheistic geologists with a belief in an old earth should be similarly disqualified by your criteria - or is balance a problem here?
What's this about my "criteria"?
I've never told you what my criteria is, so could you not just make it up?
I have no problem with Austin believing in a young earth. If he was willing to present a honest case for it, I would respect that (and him, for giving it a go). However, he hasn't. Rather he only misrepresents a scientific technique in order to score cheap brownie points.
And given that Austin (plus all the other young earthers) disagree with pretty much all of modern geology, describing them as geologists would be a surefire way to lead to confusion.
Thank you for agreeing with me that it is a theory.
My pleasure.
A theory is not a fact (check the dictionary or a definition of the scientific process).
Correct. Theories try to explain facts.
Species changing over time (ie. evolution) have been observed, therefore evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Are you saying that you have proof that a species has evolved into a completely new species?
Yes.
This is breaking news, why isn't it on the headlines page here?
This is oh so wrong. Speciation events have been known for a long time. Creationists may live in the distant past, but science doesn't.
To help you catch up with the rest of the world you should investigate cichlid fishes, the Faroe Island mouse, goatsbeards flowers, and Rhagoletis pomonella. And that's just to get you started...
I do not accept that slight modifications of a species proves evolution. As I stated before, that happens all the time, but it is still the same species.
If a speciation event occurs, by very defination, it is not the same species.
Actually according to G. Brent Dalrymple, a geologist with the USGS, there are a number of cases where radiometric dating was very far off.
And...
Nobody denies that there are strange results, however, these occur when there is a result for the isotope compositions to be disturbed. For example, one of the early North American archeology sites is subjected to heated debate because of controversial dating due to possible carbon contamination.
Not to mention the case of Mt. St. Helens, where rocks were taken from the newly formed lava dome and K-Ar dated. They were known to be roughly 8 years old (how long the dome had been forming). Yet the labs tested them and the youngest date was over 200,000 years (oldest test date was in the millions).
Given that K-Ar dating has a lower limited on the age required for a accurate answer (which is much greater than 8 years), the person who submitted them to the labs for testing must have been either (a) clueless, or (b) only after propaganda. Not surprising that this comes out of the creationist world.
Now yes many apologists will claim that this was due to excess Argon. Of course it had to be either excess Ar or depleted K, since this is a ratio measurement. And they'll mention that the rock selected must have either heated insufficiently to achieve full Ar bleedout, or that chunks of the rock were never liquified and therefore were pockets of ancient ratios.
Which are all good reasons. Did Austin and co-workers perform Ar testing on the rocks like a geologist would? Or might that kill their little story?
Certainly the explanation is some combination of those causes. However it does bring up a significant methodological question. Since cases where the age is known result in conclusively incorrect data, even if it can be explained, why should anyone accept as accurate rocks which are from an unknown time frame? The same explanations used to excuse the immensely incorrect ratios in known-age rocks could apply to rocks with an unknown history.
Unlike creationists, geologists are extremely careful of the rocks which test. Radiodating is complex, and one must be careful in it's application.
However, what the creationists are doing is the equilivent of the trying to measure a atom with a meter ruler, failing and them claiming that all measuring equipment doesn't work.
Isn't it true that some of the methods have been falsified, and we should look for better tools?
No, it's been abused not falsified. There is a massive difference.
But evolution is a theory. It can't be proven unless (according to the scientific process) someone sees it happen. To the best of my knowledge, no one has seen anything evolve into something else. Thus it remains a theory.
This statement is so wrong in so many different ways. The first sentence is correct, but that's about it.
Evolution (along with gravity, relativity, and a spherical earth) is a theory. Whether or not they are observed, will not change their status. However, contary to creationist propaganda evolution has been observed. Both in the lab, and if the field.
I just can't understand how anyone can look at the world/universe in all of the splendor with all the mechanical and physical laws that work so tightly together and say "It just happened that way". To me that would be like saying "my computer built itself from the sands on the beach". It took intelligence to build a computer and it took even more intelligence to build the universe.
Luckly nobody is suggesting that it just happened that way. Therefore this statement is based on a misunderstanding.
However, how accurate are field conditions? Minerals move and change over such a large period of time, so how does one know when one has a representative ratio of (say) tungsten-182 and hafnium-182? A you pointed out, it was the sampling techniques that were flawed in the original estimate. How does one show that the techniques used in this sample (and others) are accurate?
There are several ways in which one can check the accuracy of radiodating in the field.
For recent (on the historical timescale) events, one can compare radiodates with historical dates. For example, radiodating lava from Pompay gives the same date as what can be derived from Romen records).
Another much more general method (as it doens't rely on other information), is compare radiodates of various techniques.
For example, the Meteorite named Saint Severin was radiodated with Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr and Ar-Ar dating. If one isotope was migrating, then one dates optained would be off, if all of the isotopes were migrating, then all of the dates would be off (they would migrate at different speeds).
We get the following results:
Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33
Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15
Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04, 4.38 +/- 0.04, and 4.42 +/- 0.04
However, that being said, many individual radiodates are heatly debated in the science lit., however, the accuracy of the technique as a whole is well established.
I'm doing a PhD and chemistry (and have published a handful of papers) and hence have a little bit of experience with this. By charging the authors $500 you would kill the number of papers written. The high profile work would still get published, but the less exciting stuff would remain unpublished. Because one person's boring work is another person's saviour, this would be a very bad thing.
Also, maybe it is different in other fields, but in chemistry, one doens't pay to get a article published (unless it is for colour printing etc).
I don't want to answer for the poster to whom you are replying to, but there are some flaws in your post.
As for the tax cuts hurting the economy, I'm not a economist, and don't really know a great deal about economics, so as a arguement from authority, I would like to present Paul Krugmen as person who does argue (with a straight face) that the taxcuts do hurt the economy. This NYT article [reg required etc etc etc] give some of his views on the Bush tax cuts.
Pretending this is true for a moment,
You don't need to pretend, the other posters comment "Global warming is accepted by the majority of mainstream scientists as being scientific fact" is factually correct (assuming that one assumes that s/he is talking about climatic scientists). It is the global warming skeptics who lack scientific experience (with only a handful of exceptions such as Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels).
that still doesn't mean that Kyoto is a good idea. To do that you need to show that the benefits outweigh the costs.
If you want to research more on this, I would suggest this report.
Environmentalists have not done this; instead they've resorted to the "we're all gonna die!" fear-mongering that they've been using for decades.
Perhaps you should stop basing your opinions on organisations like GreenPeace, who know how (and are willing to) play the PR game, and look at the work (preferable the peer reviewed stuff) done by environomental scientists.
Many seemingly senseless taboos have a basis in fact.
Agreed, but I feel that you are reading too much into them. They have a basis in fact, but they arne't a be all and end all.
Why is it we eat lots of herbivores (chickens, pigs, cows, etc), but we don't eat carnivores (dogs, cats, tigers, lions)? Is it because it doesn't seem "right", or because carnivores being higher up the food chain concentrate toxins?
We eat lots of herbivores because it is more efficent to. We need a heap of plant material to feed a herbivore, but if we farmed carnivores, we would need a heap of herbivores to feed the carnivores, and a truely massive amount of plant material to feed the herbivores. It's far more efficent to eat the stuff at the bottom of the food chain.
That being said, if you got your meat from hunting carnivores, it wouldn't do you any harm.
Why don't Jews eat pork? Is it because God said so, or is it because God (and his numerous assistants down here) noticed that before refrigerators you got Trichinosis from eating pork?
While pork can cause health problems, virtually every type of food (meat especially) can do the same. Why pork and not chicken? It was probably a cultural thing that got passed down through history (as far as I know, the non-eating of pork is the oldest archeology dated Jewish custom).
Changing the selection pressures on a population, will change the population.
Was everyone who was killed corrupt?
Even the infants?
Or do you believe that genocide can be considered justice?