Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Bart Goddard <goddardbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Jun 2010 19:50:15 GMT
Miss Elaine Eos <misc@*Your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote in news:i0arll$bcf
$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
And that's why paleontology is not a science. How
can one speak of "consistency" when the experiment can
be run only one time, and that one time was at least
1000 years ago AND no one was watching?
To what part of paleontology do you refer?!
The experiments and observations are done repeatedly, every day, in the
modern day, by multiple people, from different angles, with different
assistive gear.
And yet all they are doing is re-measuring the results of
the ONE trial which was begun 10^3 or 10^12 years ago.
I can grind up 100 old bones and discover that they all
have the same proportion of carbon-14. So what? That
data fits almost any model I care to propose. So I'm
not to impressed when a paleontologist declares that
his "experimental data" fits his model. It fits mine
too.
The whole "science" is backward. Paleontologists use
the model to date bones. They don't (and can't) use
bones to test the model. It's NOT an experiment to
grind up a bone, measure the carbon1-14, and then
declare that one knows the age of the bone, which in
turn verifies the model.
Do you make the same claim that geology isn't a science, because all
the Earth is old and we weren't around when it was formed?!
No. One can do repeatable experiments in geology. For instance,
I can pound a soundwave into the earth and record the echo
coming back. Collecting many of these samples, I form
hypotheses about what the echoes look like when there
is crude oil below the surface. I then declare that I can
find oil without drilling test wells. Skeptics are silenced
when my record for hitting oil is 8 out of 10 wells drilled,
when the normal success rate is 1 in 10.
Is there something similar that one can do in paleontology
(or in the part of geology that tries to date the earth?)
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
.
- References:
- Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: S.T.
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Tony
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Alex W
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Alex W
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Alex W
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Tony
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: btorvik2
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- Prev by Date: Re: Tis a far far better place........?
- Next by Date: Re: Tis a far far better place........?
- Previous by thread: Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- Next by thread: Re: Thanks for the welcome... and white spots on wrapper?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|