science is "supposedly" things we observe by seeing and testing yet somehow scientists think they have the right to talk about the past and the past was "not observed" so it is neither history nor science.
for example when science books claim the "time in the past" when there were dinosaurs and the age of the sun and geological eras that is "not observed" and not "written" so it is neither history nor science.
such "dates in the past" are just as bad as the stories in the bible which were "not observed either".
so why would anybody accept either idea?
humans tend to think that "if it is a magic book" like the bible that makes it "believable" and the same flaw is equaly blind faith if the scientist wrote about the past neither is observed and it is "not true science" just because a scientist wrote it.
well what about carbon dating?
we can observe some half lives for example "cu81" has 3.4 hours.or as other scientists measured and "observed" and Cu81(73.2±6.8 ms).the first source does not use the word half-life but that is the context as they group it woith zinc 72 ZINC "half-life 49 hours" called zn 72 [seaborg page 110 at 487] cf http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvL.113c2505X
the idea of half-life is the radiation does not stop after 98 hours just because it "radiated" half in 49 twice because the rate changes. like a dying flame less is emitted at differing rates less and less.
it is "not a steady rate" as i have heard some people claim. in my opinion it should beand run out after 98 but apparently it was observed. well the two observations refute each other for cu 81 copper . so much for "fact". carbon dating is just as bad as bible religions.
now people who challenge religion mention carbon dating and although as above religion is baseless, the same carbon dating is equaly a beaseless religion and when a human who usualy writes "true science" claim carbon dating "tells us the dates in the past" that is neither history nor science.
ken ham has a book in which he openly reveals his religious bias discussing god and this prejudice leads him to challenge the idea of half-life.
ken points out that "long term" half lifes [for example carbon claimed to decay over 5000 years" is called "a guess" because no single person OBSERVED it for 5000 years. did a scientist measure it 5 times each thousand years over the last 5000 years? even those who believe in the faith of carbon dating do not say that lie.
ken challenges "where did this guess come from" emphasis his.
ken brings the "formula" and challenges that observation of a short time is not observation of a long time and although his analogy of a poll is flawed it seems to me the idea is correct for a different reason because the idea of half-life itself is that the rate changes... so observing for any time refutes itself.
we can assume that half lifes happen the way thy occiur in zinc 72 but that is a guess who observed the rate of carbon. did anybody measure carbon each hundred years?
and how much was in the sample? nobody observed that the amount in the sample had a known amount. if scientists today claim "look there is so little" do we know how much more was in it when the dinosaur died? we say it had small amounts now and more then.
well lets do somne math doubling.
as wrote elsewhere if now there is one unit of radioactive and we double it each 5000 years how many times can we double something? try ten
1<2<4<8<16<32<64<128<256<512
in just 50000 years of ten "generations" of carbon dating claime dat around 5000 years per half life, it doubled ten times enough radiation to "microwave itself to death". over 70.000.000 as some dinosaur books say it would double even more times.
and we do not know how much was in it when the decay started.
in fact if a short time observation is "extrapolated" to long term the results can be vastly different from each other and as ken points out different radio-dating hjave differing results on page
using "various methods on the same sample" reveals different results refuting that "radiometric dating" refutes each other.on page 143 and of course the key question do we know the "product" called "initial amounts" whemn the ecay began by sending out radiation.
if the universe was as ancient as science books claim and that is as mentioned "not observed nor observable" and clearly not science just because someboduy who usualy writes science wrote or edited it...
how can any concentrations of radioactive material remain after solong? unless somebody used centrifuges or equipment to increase radiation...
***for me the key issue is the one ken ham writes on page 143 "initial amount" that was certainly not observed."inside the nye ham debate' that means a debate between mr ham and mr nye.
differing methods of the same sample refute each other because they are not the same results so which "methoid is the wrong calculation" which one/ mabe all.
so carbon dating is not only unreliable but worse discussing "the past" is neither history nor science.
so does that leave religion?
of course not! that was rejected at the beginning of this artice when moses claimed god told me stuff... was that observed?
when the bible said before man was created stuff happened no human observed it... before god "created man from the dirt and earth of the ground" self refutes any claim of observation. the bible never even claimed "god said to moses first i created light and then the sun and then animals over millions of years" none of those details are in the bible according to standards of "reading comprehension" what religious people do to corrupt the story is not only not the content of the bok but is non-comprehension. and they say you need to be an expert to know the different answers to "defend" what is baseless and non-observed did moses ever ccalim 'god told me this is what happened and when" not even claimed and if he would claim that claim itself is not observed so is he lying it is as baseless as if he was silen was moses telling the truth i do not know so it is the same as if he did not write anything.
the bible said everything in the bible is god inspiring the writers, that only gives the religious an excuse to burn the doubters at the stake... that does not show the contents are true the past is "not observed' so whether it is in a rleigious book or a science book it is neither true "history" nor science it simply is outside of science to speak about the past and as the character "sheldon" said about geology, "geology is not science' and that sentence is a very accurate criticism.
scientists observe it is "deep underground" that is known what that tells us is zero a "null set".
far from certainty and far from science. only certain things are science not the past who said? think for yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment