BOLT mine:

I suggest you buy your self a caliper and meassure a piece of timber wood let us say 18 feet long.
Than you do it again. And again. If you get the same results, I would be very surprised.
Or vice versa, buy a rule and and try to get the accurate diameter of a 1/4" tube.

After you tried that, we can talk again about different meassuring methods.

I assume your reply to my last post already answered by parallaxicality

__________________
Andre

"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!"
Mark Twain

That's exactly why good science never relies on one single measurement of anything. The total weight of evidence is what's considered.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

We may have to agree to disagree. What you said doesn't make sense. Science doesnt rely on one single measurement? If science doesnt' rely on one single measurement then which measurement do they choose? The total weight of evidence is what's considered? do you mean that they average all the measurements? I don't get what your saying.

Clearly, you need to do some research on just how science works. Science uses numerous methods of analyzing data to ensure it is as accurate as possible. Results are checked and rechecked, measurements and experiments are repeated constantly, and methods of both observation and analysis are constantly reviewed by experienced peers. That's what the majority of research consists of-- checking the answers.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Because they're not all designed to measure from point A to point B. (Of course, "designed" is the wrong word. The scientists are taking advantage of a well-studied, known fact about the universe.) One measure accurately from, say, point A to about point D. One measure accurately from point C to about point F. And so on. If you try to measure from point A to point B with one that doesn't give accurate results at that distance, why should you expect the right answer? Likewise trying to measure from point E to point F--or point X to point Y--with one that simply doesn't work that far through the alphabet. You have to know at least a little about half-lives in order to understand it. Namely that, since different elements have different half-lives, different radiometric systems work at different ages. Do you understand now?

There are two options regarding getting incorrect radiometric dates from lava. One is, believe it or not, existing crystals of older materials. (You may not believe it, but geologists have found them, and you clearly don't understand science at all, so I'm going to put my trust in "we've found it" instead of "but it doesn't make sense to me.") Those will give an older date than new rock. Obviously.

The other, again, is using the wrong system. Brand new rock . . . well, doesn't really need to be dated in the first place, since you've seen it put in place. And anyway, C-14 isn't precise enough to give "last Thursday" as a date. But using the abovementioned "point C to point F" system, you're going to get the wrong answer on something that new. That's just how it works. I really don't know how many ways there are left to explain something so simple to you.

But, yes, all incorrect datings involve either foreign material or using the incorrect system. As to those petrified trees you mentioned earlier, there are several options there, too. Using the resource I've told you twice will be a good source of information, try http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html. For radiometric dating, try http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html. In fact, I'd recommend that you read all of http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. It might help you learn something, though given how hard it is to get you to understand the basics, it might not.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I have to take minor exception to this, because scientist are biased. Deep-rooted concepts are more difficult to dislodge than they should be. A good example Nobel element reactions. These should have been investigated decades before they were; it was simply a matter of everyone accepting the gospel of inert elements.

Did I read a declaration in this thread that God exists? Wrong platform. If you don't understand the implications of using emperical evidence, don't post.

__________________
jwj

The Reluctant Cosmologist

I'd say decades is not a very long time..
And Does that mean the the fact was immovable or was not immovable?

Whatever ever the facts of nature are they have to point in one immovable direction...wether they do or not...
Are you saying I should follow that view?

The golden age of inorganic chemistry ran from the late 19th century to about 1940. Thousands of labs, millions of manhours; the techniques necessary to create reactions with inert elements existed for a long time before it occurred to anyone to try it. This is a textbook case of textbooked myopia.

I'm missing something here. One fact about nature is that it appears to be directionless.

__________________
jwj

The Reluctant Cosmologist

Surely you mean "noble." Instead of the Nobel you'd win if you could prove any of your ideas.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Of course they are. Everyone is. But don't confuse science (the process) with scientists.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

AndreH and Noclevername are right regarding evidence in science, Thumper.

A while ago, another poster asked for evidence that the universe is expanding, and Tim Thompson gave an excellent reply. I urge you to read it.

Science is as good as the scientists who make it. I think what you are suggesting, and I agree with it in part, is that the various biases that scientists may have will in general cancel each other out, making the general scientific consensus less biased. However, if too many scientists in a field share similar biases, then the end result can still be very biased. There are historical examples of this.

If you meant to say that in the long run human criticism and empirical evidence tend to smooth out the biases, I agree again. Still, it can take some time for that evening out to happen.

Another important issue which you may not have considered, because it's not strictly speaking scientific (though Thomas Kuhn and his followers might describe it as such) is that even when the scientific consensus has been relatively evened, popular wisdom often lags behind it, sometimes with the support of some scientists who make up a minority, but who remain influential for reasons that are not strictly scientific, such as political prominence, or fame. Case in point, Professor James Watson.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

(this is worse than pulling teeth )
Correct me if I'm wrong
Science in general is only looking for the truth of 'how it is" and doesn't claim evidence as fact unless it is proven. So in general it does not have a bias stance of how everything got here, or what it is. And in general does not claim something as fact unless there is solid evidence for it? And if there is solid evidence for intelligent design, it will come out, wether that be in years, decades or whatever.
If creationist science is telling the evidence of nature what they already are, they are be placing a connection on nature that may not in reality be there. And if they say they already know how everything got here..that is incorrect..because we don't (as far as I'm aware) It's that combination, that I find biased and nothing to do with attacking someone's personal belief.
If solid evidence suggested a possibility of intelligent design, then I would be all ears. If the search is for the unbiased truth and how it really is, then from my point of view I'd have to be careful of adding a personal belief to it. (but i aint no scientist so I don't know if it's my place to say... only my opinion).

The second one. There are always bumps in the data due to bias, but as the process is continually applied, they get smaller and smaller over time.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

You seem to be agreeing with me more than disagreeing.

Wether I understand it or not.. is not a prerequisite for posting.. I presume.

Somewhere in your quote is simply a fact of nature being crushed by religious arguments.

It's only an opinion not the end of the world


So it seemed that only time would educate the delusional of society.
Not the talking nonsense like me variety.

Cheers

You have been talking a lot about bias on this thread. Let's go back to the roots for a moment:

Intelligent Design bases its hypothesis of Earth being 6000+ years old on one ancient book.
All other sources are disregarded.

When has there ever been a scientific theory that biased?!

Yeah that's what I'm saying..a science based on religion.. can only be biased..
Were as science in general is not biased..
Were did you get the idea otherwise?

My quote..
I will clarify...
1. If creationist science is telling the evidence of nature what they already are, they are be placing a connection on nature that may not in reality be there. 2. And if they say they already know how everything got here..that is incorrect..because we don't (as far as I'm aware). It's the combination of the two that I find biased.

You didn't quote me so I'm not sure if you were directing your question at me.. But that's my opinion on it anyway.


...................
(nothing to do with this, but I'm going to say it any way).

Me, having difficulty learning the intricacies of a theory (i.e. time), does not mean I do not trust it to be correct.