1. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176376 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 8:07 am

I believe I have received what I came here for. Every once in a while I need to take a pulse and see if the human mind is still capable of the high levels of self-deception that I remember from my last investigation into the matter.

Last time around it was with theists, as will my next time around. I rotate out of fairness :)

Carry on and whatever you do, don't let go of the rank and file - the party-line. Not even a single plank for that matter. You never know what else might unravel in life if you do.

Farewell to all.

2. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176367 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 8:00 am

Given that he believes that approx 200 billion people live in the USA, I doubt he will.

Hey, fucknut. Look into it before you puke on the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

304 billion - 75% adults - 40% YEC'ers come to 91 billion. My 80 plus billion was off the top of my head and damn close I might add. Now fuck off with your stupid ass shit.

3. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176357 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 7:52 am

Oh yeah, flood evidence?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS243US244&q=flood evidence&btnG=Search

4. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176352 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 7:47 am

Seeker-

so you're not going to answer Irate's questions 1 and 2, then?

You don't know an answer when you see one?

5. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176343 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 7:41 am

Did you mean "devisive" issues?
You realise they're only devisive for particular demographic of society (specifically YEC's). They're not devisive in the field.

Yes, and thank you for the correction. I live in the US where some 40% of the adult population [80 plus billion people] believe in the basic tenets of YEC.

I don't see where a small or large number of scientists on either side or this issue can offset the cultural effects of this debate in its present state.

6. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176334 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 7:29 am

... we aren't afraid of any god; they don't exist. We ARE, however, afraid of the irrational behaviour of their followers here on earth; they are truly fecking scary.

Seeing that the vast majority of the world's populations tend to hold to some form or another of religious belief, you must live in constant fear.

That's no way to live life if you ask me. What I fear is intolerance, not someone's fantasy life.

7. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176330 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 7:23 am

What are your credentials in the scientific field?

Largely unbiased. I think that goes as far any shit I have read of late on evidence to support or refute these devices issues revolving around the age of the universe and origin/evolution of life on earth. Other than that, I am obviously a layman.

8. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176324 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 7:12 am

And now with the global flood. As Rev Dark said - any evidence for that?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you have already done some research on this evidence.

Which points did you find the most compelling and which the least?

9. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176321 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 7:09 am

A good reason for no global flood. No evidence to support the theory.

Correction.

No evidence that your little scared-shitless-of a-deity that you don't believe exists brain can bear to consider.

10. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176317 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 7:04 am

you didn't answer 1 and 2.

Isn't that what we've been discussing for four days now?

If that's not some form of an answer then fuck it all.

11. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176313 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 6:58 am

3. What's your fucking point?

I would have to say this much - if you people are any representation of the scientists that you rely on, the bias within these scientist's work would be difficult to offset in the attempt to arrive at truth. Not that it can't be done, just why make it so damn difficult?

12. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176308 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 6:50 am

Do you think there was a global flood as described in the bible?
If so, when?

Sometime in ancient history I believe there was a widespread flood, possibly global, and not localized as we know floods to occur today. It becomes difficult to deny the possibility when you consider such flood stories exist in almost every ancient culture of the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Not ice, not fire, not planetary collisions, not a shortage of oxygen, etc... but a flood.

Does one flood story that comes from the OT, among the many, somehow reflect poorly on the possibility of a global disaster of this type just because it is found in the OT and for no other good reason? If so, that would be a sad statement on your level of open-mindedness.

13. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176300 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 6:36 am

Simple words for a simple person, then. Here we go. The half-life of C14 is such that after approx 50,000 years of decay, the radioactivity of a once organic object is low enough so as to be virtually indistinguishable from background radiation levels.

So it only took three pages of posts to agree with me? No wonder I get tempted to just give up on you guys.

seeker_of_truth from three pages ago - The reason for this limit is that C-14, with a 5730 year half-life, would be in such miniscule amounts after 50,000 years that dating reliability would then become ineffectual.

14. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176045 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 12:24 pm

At this point I can safely say we are done debating evidence and moving into spout-at-will, biased rhetoric.

I have no real interest in the latter. Tomorrow is another day though.

15. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176038 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 12:13 pm

So, you still going on about c14 testing on dinosaur fossils (imaginary or not?)

Unless we can get past the basic philosophy of when C-14 applies and when it does not, apart from presuppositions such as geological strata/periods, any dinosaur fossil test evidence is as dead as the dinosaur it came from.

16. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176035 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Many on your list were excellent scientists, making use of the scientific method. No supernatural agents cited or required.

The only three things the men on that list had in common was a claim that they began their search for truth with the assumption that God exists, the bible is true, and that God had created an orderly universe that reveals himself.

I'm not sure what your definition of a 'supernatural agent' is but it sure seems to describe the beliefs of this group.

17. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176023 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 11:46 am

Anybody that lived past 1950?

The dates are all there, no? If you have a statement or opinion it would be preferred over an ambiguous, leading question and/or insinuation.

Also, these guys can't be in scientific journals to qualify under Reverend Dark's 'knuckle starts' list so we have to go back a ways.

18. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176019 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 11:34 am

The fact that the mission statement of those collected heads of knuckle starts from the presupposition that science and revelation are required it is by the very definition - not good science, and not a scientific journal.

Add these 'knuckle starts' to your list then too;

Georgias Agricola (1494-1555)- Founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)- Discoverer of the Laws of Planetary Motion
Johannes Baptistavan Helmont (1579-1644) - Founder of Pneumatic Chemistry and Chemical Physiology
Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618-1663) - Discoverer of the Diffraction of Light
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) - Mathematical Prodigy and Universal Genius
Robert Boyle (1627-1691) - Founder of Modem Chemistry
John Ray (1627-1705) - Cataloger of British Flora and Fauna
Isaac Barrow (1630-1677) - Newton's Teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) - Discoverer of Bacteria
Niels Steno (1638-1686) - Founder of Geology
James Bradley (1693-1762) - Discoverer of the Aberration of Starlight
Ewald Georg von Kleist (c. 1700-1748) - Inventor of the Leyden Jar
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) - Classifier of all Living Things
Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) - The Prolific Mathematician
John Dalton (1766-1844) - Founder of Modem Atomic Theory
Thomas Young (1773-1829) - First to Conduct a Double-Slit Experiment with Light
David Brewster (1781-1868) - Researcher of Polarized Light
Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) - Geologist of the Cambrian
Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788-1827) - The Physicist of Light Waves
Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789-1857) - Soulwinning Mathematician
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) - Giant of Electrical Research
John Frederick William Herschel (1792-1871) - Cataloger of the Southern Skies
Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873) - Pathfinder of the Seas
Philip Henry Gosse (1810-1888) - Popular Naturalist
Asa Gray (1810-1888) - Influential American Botanist
James Dwight Dana (1813-1895) - Systematizer of Mineralogy
George Boole (1815-1864) - Discoverer of Pure Mathematics
James Prescott Joule (1818-1889) - Originator of Joule's Law
John Couch Adams (1819-1892) - Codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) - Theorist for Fluorescence
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) - Pioneer in Genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) - Physicist of Thermodynamics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) - The Non-Euclidean Geometer Behind Relativity Theory
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) - Father of Modem Physics
Edward William Morley (1838-1923) - Michelson's Partner in Measuring the Speed of Light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem (1861-1916) - The Physicist Who Recovered the Science of the Middle Ages
Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) - The Priest Who Showed Us the Universe Is Expanding
George Washington Carver (c. 1864-1943) - Pioneer in Chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882-1944) - The Astronomer Who Ruled Stellar Theory

19. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176013 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 11:03 am

The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication.

Back to this again? Why would a religious, political, gender, racial, or any other affiliation disqualify a paper from being good science?

Unless, of course, the reader was biased from the onset.

20. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175992 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 10:25 am

Going to lunch but here is a rather objective treatment on C-14 for those so interested.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

21. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175983 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 10:15 am

The only person who does not understand the limitations is you; and you have already demonstrated a profound ignorance on the subject.

It might be claimed that I am the only one lacking understating but I know for a fact I am the only one thus far who can state the explanation for the limits of C-14 in my own words without having to resort to links that I claim an understanding of but... seemingly cannot demonstrate that same understanding.

22. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175977 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 10:00 am

Seeker, the new upward limit is a reflection of the increased technology we have the bring to bear of the this testing method. It has been steadily creeping upwards since the technology was discovered. This is the latest refinement, and while it is impressive, it is still a miniscule spread in terms of time, and does not get anywhere near to the effective time scale required to test dinosaur fossils.

And what does an advancing technology that is yet unrefined have to do an explanation of the workings on the current limitations?

23. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175968 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 9:47 am

I googled "4000 year old dinosaur" and my computer laughed at me. is that normal?

I'm laughing at you as well but I'm not sure if that qualifies as the 'normal' response to you quite yet :)

24. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175964 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 9:40 am

If you had read the most recent paper I linked to, you would see how the upper limit of C14 dating is being pushed back by using a situation that limits interference of background variations through isolation of the testing environment.

And this substantiates your following claim...

Testing an artifact over 50,000 years with C14 is a useless gesture. You will not get an accurate result.

... in what way exactly?

25. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175958 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 9:33 am

If you want to change my mind, provide some evidence. Why not start with that link to the 4,000 year old dinosaur?

If you're really that anxious to get to the end of this drama - Google it.

If you're Google's broke or you are lacking the energy, you'll just have to wait.

26. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175955 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 9:29 am

Comment #175946 by The Reverend Dark

Do you actually have a point to make?

Yes, you seem to be avoiding my question. Do I need to restate it again?

27. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175954 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #175942 by irate_atheist

That was not a question for you and even if it were, what happened to "in your own words"?

I have read the Wiki page along with dozens of others over the years and given my explanation for the limits of C-14.

Seriously now, can no one here do the same?

28. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175939 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 8:59 am

Comment #175932 by The Reverend Dark

No answer again? Oh well, you can't say it was for a lack of asking.

You have to pony up your 4,000 year old fossils first.

If you didn't comprehend it yet from my consistent representations, my 4k yr. old, C-14 dated fossil is still imaginary.

But you never know when something might materialize.

29. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175934 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 8:55 am

Everyone-

it seems that Seeker has learned a valuable lesson. In the "Supernova" discussion he provided links. When we looked at those links, we discovered that they completely undermined the point he was trying to make. He has obviously decided not to make the same mistake twice.

Everyone -

Let's hurry and muddy the waters because I sense a challenge to my long held paradigm coming.

30. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175930 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 8:53 am

If you want to move on the scripture quotes and threats of eternal damnation now self-seeker then we will know where we stand.

I would have thought by the lack-of, by this point at least, it would have caused a thinking man to have already reached a conclusion on this.

31. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175927 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 8:47 am

Second, please restate your question; it has been lost in the waffling...

Sorry to have lost you so quickly.

Comment #175880 by The Reverend Dark

Testing an artifact over 50,000 years with C14 is a useless gesture. You will not get an accurate result.

Please explain in your own words how you substantiate the above claim. In other words, why is C-14 valid under 50k and not over 50k?

32. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175922 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 8:41 am

Now imagine you find dino-bone fossils in a geological column that we assume, yes assume, is 70 million years old - yet these bones test at 4,000 years average under C-14 with no known contamination of any kind. Do we go with the assumption [based on evolutionary theory] or the more scientifically verifiable process of C-14 dating?

You guys are sure making a big deal about something still in the imagination phase.

33. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175915 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 8:36 am

Comment #175911 by The Reverend Dark

http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/volume43/number2A/azu_radiocarbon_v43_n2a_157_161_v.pdf

I didn't see where my question was answered in this link. Could you please 'dumb it down' for me in your own words? Thanks.

34. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175908 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 8:25 am

Spinner:

You keep going on and on about the bias. The fact that you claim to see it on both sides isn't fooling anyone.

Your constant repetition of this pap only re-enforces it in your own mind. No one else here is snowed by it. Even people of average intelligence can see through your useless "arguments".

Go try it on with the brainwashed masses. You may have fooled a few fundies into thinking that you make some sort of sense, but you will continue to fail miserably on this site. You just don't have the skillz, srsly.

I at least hope you feel better than before you typed this. Now, do you have any content to offer to this discussion?

35. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175904 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 8:21 am

Comment #175880 by The Reverend Dark

Testing an artifact over 50,000 years with C14 is a useless gesture. You will not get an accurate result.

Your link(s) didn't work for me. Please feel free to explain in your own words how you substantiate the above claim.

36. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175898 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 8:04 am

The reason for this limit is that C-14, with a 5730 year half-life, would be in such miniscule amounts after 50,000 years that dating reliability would then become ineffectual.

May I presume since no one has disputed this or offered an alternative explanation of why C-14 is invalid beyond 50k years that my above, stated discourse is agreed upon?

37. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175892 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 7:55 am

I don't believe you have given us the reference to this putative 4000 year old dinosaur.

Obviously, testing data such as this will be coming from a source which some on this site might consider "______________." Fill-in-th-blank with degrading adjectives of choice. However, disparaging remarks will not make any test results go away.

If you saw the blinding bias that I perceive [true or not] from both sides of this debate you would understand my patience when introducing data which conflicts with one's world view.

38. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175883 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 7:46 am

Testing an artifact over 50,000 years with C14 is a useless gesture. You will not get an accurate result.

I said as much. If you disagree with the reason that I have given for this, please feel free to provide another.

39. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175866 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 7:04 am

If you had actually read the paper you linked to, you would have missed this little gem.

"First of all, to avoid confusion, it is necessary to understand that carbon dating can only be use to date geologically young, 35k - 50k years, carbon containing substances (Lepper, 1992; Whitelaw, 1993)."


I didn't miss this or any other part of that paper. The reason for this limit is that C-14, with a 5730 year half-life, would be in such miniscule amounts after 50,000 years that dating reliability would then become ineffectual.

Now imagine you find dino-bone fossils in a geological column that we assume, yes assume, is 70 million years old - yet these bones test at 4,000 years average under C-14 with no known contamination of any kind. Do we go with the assumption [based on evolutionary theory] or the more scientifically verifiable process of C-14 dating?

The establishment in science is questioned every single fucking day. It is called peer review.

When peer review by agreeing parties is the only source considered valid, I personally think we have a problem. Unless I'm going for a pay-raise, I prefer a mix of both agreeable and disagreeable theories, tests, and opinions to arrive at reality.

Seeker of his own arse with both hands and a flashlight wrote...
This is a nice way of saying that you do not want to keep looking like an utter bell end and want to try and retire the field with something akin to your dignity intact....
There is it, your ignorance on the subject hanging out all pink and naked.

Why waste space with such dribble when you can simply address the actual issues? Personal insecurity dilemma that needs bolstering with all-to-easy rhetoric?

40. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175430 by seeker_of_truth on May 5, 2008 at 11:58 am

So, Seeker, C14 ages can be inaccurate in the too-young direction if researchers did not test for (or did not have any information about) nearby radioactivity associated with the sample. That is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy you report.

If it were only this simple. The following site includes this contamination factor on top many other variables which might affect the accuracy of C-14 dating.

http://www.et.byu.edu/~adw45/Carbonpercentage20Dating.htm

You'll have to remove the word 'percentage' and use the symbol % in its place when you copy/paste... sorry. Limitations of this site I guess.

What bothers me is that every dating method used is subject to a similar amount of variables and corrupting factors yet, according to naturalists, they all lead us to consistent ages plus/minus these small ranges. It's just all too neat for my liking. If we can't nail down C-14 much past 4000 years due to unknown and un-testable variables beyond that period, how the heck are we supposed to swallow millions and billions of years as accurate ages?

Believe if you will but I say it takes some real faith to feel no need to question the establishment. With this post I have grown tired of the dating issue but feel free to post your opinions on the matter. I'll read them at a minimum.

41. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174488 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 1:54 pm

OK. One last time, then I give up (again).

I highly recommend you just give up. We're so mired in different readings of each other's posts and the link content that I fear a return to sanity is now impossible.

And, it's time for me to go home. I'll look for you on Monday.

42. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174487 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 1:50 pm

So they took simple count data from tree rings, varves, coral growth and the like to calibrate 14C. Your point is?

I thought I was clear enough. However, my point is that two different dating techniques claim reliability and yet the results from the same sample date vastly different. Therefore, one of both must be unreliable.

This would be documented in peer-reviewed papers in a reputable journal I presume.

With much the same results as the dispute going on with SNR's and how to interpret the data I'm sure.

43. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174468 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 1:20 pm

If not, let's back up to the beginning. Do you concur that the FAQ has restated your objections correctly? If so, do you then agree with all the calculations done in section 10.1? If not, please state your objections and back them up with credible evidence and reasoning. If you are ok with section 10.1, then let's move on to section 10.2. Any objections to 10.2? And so on.

This is too general for me to know what you are asking. Please state where my assumptions in this link are flawed/misrepresented or what I am specifically supposed to be looking at.

The assertion that Davies' use of the SNR percentages of 19%, 47%, and 14% is wrong is not true.

Is the point here that there is no disagreement?

The sigma-D method can in fact be used for all SNRs as discussed in Bullshiticus (2004) and Hogwash and Horsepucky (1998), whereas the FAQ claims is is only valid for certain types. Furthermore, in the next paragraph, a list of problems with Davies' are provided. None of these are a problem at all. Yaweh and Allah (1997) clearly demonstrate that external factors are irrelevant. [And then you go on to refute the other points in the list].

I'm afraid you will need to take this to a theist for an adequate response.

44. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174464 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Since you have yet to provide any evidence that falsifies either 40Ar dating...

I offered C14 dating on fossils which result in ages of thousands of years vs. the same sample dating into the millions with 40Ar/39Ar/K-Ar. Same principle but both can't be correct. I believe I was presented with a link showing a possible freeze variation that would account for the lower date from C-14 being tossed out (e.g. delayed C-14 decay)

11. Reimer, Paula J.; et al. (2004). "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 Cal Kyr BP". Radiocarbon 46: 1029-1058.

The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the calibration curve do not contribute more than ±16 years to the measurement error during the historic and late prehistoric periods (0 - 6,000 yrs BP) and no more than ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve, although its shape can reduce the accuracy as mentioned above.

If I provided you with recent examples of dinosaur fossils being tested with C-14 and resulting in thousands of year-type ages, would you be lacking confidence in at least one component of the dating system as much as I am?

45. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174438 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Do you ever have a normal conversation with your wife? Almost every day there's a post from you along the lines of "I asked my wife the psychologist" blah blah blah.

Nope. It's psycho-babble or wild, speechless sex. Nothing in between. ;-)

46. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174434 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 12:25 pm

The Reverend Dark, I'll make you a deal.

You represent your client and I'll represent mine. If we both win our cases, we'll celebrate at the local pub and I'll even buy the first pitcher.

Cheers as well.

47. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174421 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 11:59 am

Have you pushed back the minimum age to to 30-40,000 year mark on the basis of cave painting yet? Given the criteria that you have stated concerning written history.

For some reason I have in mind that when I make a claim, I should be able to back it up in a court of law with the applicable requirements for evidence. I would willingly represent the collection of my ancient writings for the minimum age of earth.

I could not take your cave painting on as a client on retainer. But I'm sure a reasonable payment plan could be arranged.

48. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174414 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 11:51 am

Comment #174381 by annabanana

I thought seeker struck out a couple of days ago already?

I trust this is no reflection on your thinking in the general sense.

I'll probably regret I said that :-)

49. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174407 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 11:42 am

Seeker listed the trouble he had with supernova and the age of the universe (and which he clearly cut and pasted from a YEC website somewhere). These were based on the average lifetime of three stages of life of SN and the number actually observed. Rev. Dark provided a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM10

That responded point by point (and then some) to his concerns. These included references and actual verifiable evidence.

My original post allowed for halving and/or doubling numbers at will and I also stated that we could arrive at millions of years, just not billions. From the link you provided, I will paste the estimates that I found based on their own SNR evidence. Please feel free to review and correct my reading where incorrect or incomplete.

Interestingly, there is a possibility that a supernova exploded close to earth (within 100 light years) about five million years ago.

There is also some evidence of another supernova occurring within 600 light years of the Sun within the last couple of million years and which was responsible for the nearby shell of gas known as the North Polar.

For example, one of the most famous SNRs, the celebrated Veil Nebula in the constellation of Cygnus is approximately 14,000 years old (Levenson et al. 1998). G89.0 4.7 is 19,000 years old (Leahy & Aschenbach 1996); G6.4 - 0.1 is 58,000-110,000 years old (Kaspi et al. 1993). The remnant G69.0 2.7 is at least 77,000 years old (Koo et al. 1990) and G166.2 2.5 is 150,000 years old (Kim et al. 1988). There are many other ancient remnants (Woltjer 1972; Fich 1986; Storey et al. 1992). Duncan et al. (1995) report on G279.0 1.1, which they estimate could be half a million years old (it is an extremely large and faint remnant). And older SNRs are not confined to our own Galaxy. The remnant SNR 0450-709 in the Large Magellanic Cloud, which is 340 x 245 light years in size, is several hundred thousand years old (Jones et al. 1998). And with newer and improved equipment and detection techniques, astronomers are finding more and more ancient SNRs. It has even been suggested that the large-scale structure known as the Origem Loop is an ancient SNR in a very advanced stage of evolution, and which is approximately a million years old (Hanbury Brown et al. 1960; Berkhuijsen 1974; Kahn 1976).

Maciejewski et al. (1996) describe a structure they have named the "Aquila" supershell, which lies about 8,500 light years from Earth, with a radius of over 520 light years, which they calculate is about ten million years old, and the result of 10-100 supernovae. It contains several star-forming regions. Incidentally, there is one SNR associated with this structure, G34.7 - 0.4, with a calculated age of approximately 20,000 years (Wolszczan et al. 1991; Shelton et al. 1999).

Then a claim about the age of stars which would cause us to assume from the specific references on the age of noted SNR's that no star went supernova for the first 13-14 plus billion years from big-bang, except the mention of high mass stars turning into supernova in tens of millions? Taking from this site alone, I'm confused.

However, the life cycle of stars which turn into supernovae is of the order of a few tens of millions of years for high mass stars (Type II supernovae) and at least a billion years (and usually much, much more) for lower mass stars (Type I supernovae).

50. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174376 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 10:35 am

answer mesomodel in #173889, and maybe ridicule won't be such an issue.

I wasn't really relating my post on ridicule with anything directed at me.

173889 states that I was given evidence against the parsimonious interpretation of using SNR's to date our galaxy younger than traditional naturalism (14 billion years).

I scanned all links provided and didn't find direct refutation of my evidence, but found the 'dust blocking a clear view of SRN's' an uncompelling response as dust and other light detractors in space are used to determine red-shift measurements and various other processes with a theory of consistent distribution, etc.