Re: You're assuming that things were the same back then!

On Jan 18, 11:53 am, killerlimpet <killerlim...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 17, 7:37 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On Jan 17, 4:53 pm, killerlimpet <killerlim...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

My campus is visited every few weeks by one or another traveling
evangelists aiming to turn us from our wicked, beer guzzling, pot
smoking, fornicating, gay sexing ways. Oh, and evolution accepting;
they typically take one or two swipes at why we think "Nothing
exploded, and made a monkey that gave birth to a human." I usually
argue science with them when I have the chance.

The other day, I got a new one that made me stop and think about the
mental processes involved: On countering the "carbon dating assumes
the same amount of C-14 as present day," I offered calibration
methods- ice cores, tree rings, and lake varves, things whose
interpretation as time keepers should be obvious, and I got the above
response: I am assuming that trees produced rings in the past as they
do in the present, etc.

Well, yes, actually, I am, and with damn good reason; for someone to
argue so for the scientific invalidity of evolution is asinine. But it
has a subtle brilliance: how on earth do you argue with that? Any
evidence you can present (other radiometric dating techniques,
analysis of sediment layers in varves, etc) gets attacked by the same
argument. It's unfalsifiable, but not in the explicit way that the
ophalos argument: it's not a claim that an agent adjusted the reality
to look a certain way, but that our preconceptions condition how we
interpret it. (This preacher in particular loves using
presuppositional apologetics, and uses every chance he gets to lead
into Bahnsen's transcendental proof.)

I usually point out when people make these claims about the
assumptions of scientific endeavor that dismissing evolution on the
basis of them with equal validity dismisses the underlying principles
of many technologies they take for granted- the quantum mechanics
behind their solid state video cameras, for example. In this case, the
only examples I could come up with- astronomy and archaeology- didn't
have the day to day force behind them. I instead argued that, as words
and meanings are much more malleable than the behavior of trees, he
was making the same assumption, with less validity, about the meanings
of the holy texts he was quoting, but this just tanked the
conversation into biblical apologetics.

Does anyone else have thoughts on what they would say to this sort of
"reasoning"? Is it even possible to argue against it, or is it an
insurmountable wall defending their worldview?

charlie

Yes, you have to make that assumption, but as others have pointed out,
everything has assumptions.

If you come up against that viewpoint, though, I would counter with
the question, "What are the odds that all those different species of
trees would change in the same way at the same time, and all those ice
deposits, and all those varves, and all those corals, and every
isotope we know of- they all changed in the same way at the same time,
so we would get consistent- but, according to you, incorrect
results?" The fact is that as you say, multiple independent methods
yield converging results. If any one of the changed significantly- if
trees, for example, started producing one ring every 2 years, 2000
years ago, because they were mourning for Jesus- we'd get wildly
divergent results when we used isotopes to date samples from, say,
Pompeii and compared them to the tree-ring data.

Oh, and just to set the record straight- you don't need to assume the
same concentration of 14C at the earlier time. You just have to know
the concentration- and you don't even need that for isochron dating.

Chris

PS: Keep fornicating if you like, but use condoms. Guzzle in
moderation- but use moderation when dealing with moderation, too-
except if you're driving: no moderation at all allowed in that case.
Stay away from the pot, it is still illegal, and you don't need things
like that on your record.

These are characteristics ascribed to the population in general; I
make no claim that they accurately describe my behavior. But thank you
for your advice, and yours as well, Rupert Morish.

charlie

I would hope that my science answer, rather than my tongue-in-cheek
postscript, would matter more.

Chris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Youre assuming that things were the same back then!
    ... I am assuming that trees produced rings in the past as they ... argue so for the scientific invalidity of evolution is asinine. ... Keep fornicating if you like, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Youre assuming that things were the same back then!
    ... I am assuming that trees produced rings in the past as they ... argue so for the scientific invalidity of evolution is asinine. ... if tree rings werent yearly in the past, but are yearly now, then ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Youre assuming that things were the same back then!
    ... I am assuming that trees produced rings in the past as they ... argue so for the scientific invalidity of evolution is asinine. ... evidence you can present (other radiometric dating techniques, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Youre assuming that things were the same back then!
    ... I am assuming that trees produced rings in the past as they ... argue so for the scientific invalidity of evolution is asinine. ... Keep fornicating if you like, ... Stay away from the pot, it is still illegal, and you don't need things ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Youre assuming that things were the same back then!
    ... I am assuming that trees produced rings in the past as they ... argue so for the scientific invalidity of evolution is asinine. ... The idea that you can support creationism with any sane interpretation ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading