General Ignorance of Science

[Moog]

I recently read a number of surveys, which were conducted in the USA and Europe to determine levels scientific knowledge, and the results are shocking. Almost half of the Americans surveyed believe that the earth (and, by extension, the universe) is less than 10,000 years old (whereas the true figure is 4.6 billion years).

The age of the universe is almost 14 billion years, and not 4.6 billion years.

[Andrew]

I think the 4.6 billion is the estimated age of the Earth.

[fdlsys]

Ooo! Fellow BG fan! Loved that series!

It's the attribute of highly intelligent & evolved (and modest...) people, most likely inheriting the genome of the advanced species that graced this rock with their presence some 150000 years ago - descendants of Hera Agathon, or as science and some of the religions like to refer to her - "Eve".


http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Hera_Agathon#Notes

I have her curls... and her eyes. How about you my long lost brother Andrew?

[GearSlave]

It's the attribute of highly intelligent & evolved (and modest...) people, most likely inheriting the genome of the advanced species that graced this rock with their presence some 150000 years ago - descendants of Hera Agathon, or as science and some of the religions like to refer to her - "Eve".


http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Hera_Agathon#Notes

I have her curls... and her eyes. How about you my long lost brother Andrew?

Someone is brown nosing for a 1 year AVSA subscription

[fdlsys]

Someone is brown nosing for a 1 year AVSA subscription

Wouldn't read that carp if you pay me!

Ooops, I thought this was PM... Sorry Andrew...

[Andrew]

Lol...  

I inherited the latest Cylon model as my girlfriend.

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Number_Six

Haters are gonna hate...

[KenMasters]

OK
But Carbon dating is only accurate for  58,000 to 62,000 years
so which are the other methods to determine the age of the sediment?

Different nuclei decay at different rates, so while the type of carbon used to determine age may only have a half-life of 5730 years there are other, longer lived nuclides (uranium-thorium, rubidium-strontium etc.) that can be used to date older objects.

[MorneDJ]

OK
But Carbon dating is only accurate for  58,000 to 62,000 years
so which are the other methods to determine the age of the sediment?

Correct, about 50,000 - 60,000 years. As mentioned they use a number of methods to determine age, but it seems as these dating techniques are all grouped under carbon dating. They would use uranium disequilibrium for older stuff (about 400,000 years). For older stuff they go Potassium to argon (10,000 - 3 billion years), etc. There are numerous isotopic techniques.

The oldest one we know of is dendrochronology, which is the dating of tree rings (up to 12,000 years). It is not called carbon dating, and goes with the weird ones like glass hydration and amino acid racemization. The 11 year old giving me the information can think of a few more but I am tired of typing ......

They do not have TV, DSTV, etc, are home schooled and he took a fancy in peaolentology. He can already name most of the extinct dinousaur species, when they lived, etc... benefit of a non-TV lifestyle

[Atjan]

Ehm.....I dunno, but the whole concept of evolution, as presented, really stretches the imagination. By a long sequence of highly improbable events, *nothing* exploded and started creating everything and is even now continuing to expand into the great nothingness. Meanwhile, by a major amount of chance coming together, the universe with its intricate laws came into perfect balance. THEN, randomly thrown toghether molecules got together in a very special way to form the building blocks of life. Interestingly, they got together and actually started living, taking in other elemnts and later other forms of life, multiplying, getting more complex untill one day it crawled from a puddle of mud and became the multitude of living beings we now know as fauna. I've heard few things more implausible in my life. For that to make sense, you will need an infinitely long timescale because of the infinitely small probability of that coming together. Which kind of explains why the earth is claimed to be older by a log scale every so many years. If you can believe that theory, putting your life savings into the lotto is a no brainer. Thats a  1/14000000 chance and its only 6 numbers!  ****Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to where that very special nothing that exploded came from? I'm not looking for an argument, but whichever way you spin this, you have have faith in whoever presents this, proof is scarce and at best filled with assumptions and 'wip' knowledge. Going back and checking theories is clearly not an option. The earth used to be flat until some guy managed to sail around it. So....who believes in global warming?

[GECO]

Ehm.....I dunno, but the whole concept of evolution, as presented, really stretches the imagination. By a long sequence of highly improbable events, *nothing* exploded and started creating everything and is even now continuing to expand into the great nothingness. Meanwhile, by a major amount of chance coming together, the universe with its intricate laws came into perfect balance. THEN, randomly thrown toghether molecules got together in a very special way to form the building blocks of life. Interestingly, they got together and actually started living, taking in other elemnts and later other forms of life, multiplying, getting more complex untill one day it crawled from a puddle of mud and became the multitude of living beings we now know as fauna. I've heard few things more implausible in my life. For that to make sense, you will need an infinitely long timescale because of the infinitely small probability of that coming together. Which kind of explains why the earth is claimed to be older by a log scale every so many years. If you can believe that theory, putting your life savings into the lotto is a no brainer. Thats a  1/14000000 chance and its only 6 numbers!  ****Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to where that very special nothing that exploded came from? I'm not looking for an argument, but whichever way you spin this, you have have faith in whoever presents this, proof is scarce and at best filled with assumptions and 'wip' knowledge. Going back and checking theories is clearly not an option. The earth used to be flat until some guy managed to sail around it. So....who believes in global warming?

utter crap.   


winedey winedey.

[bkgengwe]

Ehm.....I dunno, but the whole concept of evolution, as presented, really stretches the imagination. By a long sequence of highly improbable events, *nothing* exploded and started creating everything and is even now continuing to expand into the great nothingness. Meanwhile, by a major amount of chance coming together, the universe with its intricate laws came into perfect balance. THEN, randomly thrown toghether molecules got together in a very special way to form the building blocks of life. Interestingly, they got together and actually started living, taking in other elemnts and later other forms of life, multiplying, getting more complex untill one day it crawled from a puddle of mud and became the multitude of living beings we now know as fauna. I've heard few things more implausible in my life. For that to make sense, you will need an infinitely long timescale because of the infinitely small probability of that coming together. Which kind of explains why the earth is claimed to be older by a log scale every so many years. If you can believe that theory, putting your life savings into the lotto is a no brainer. Thats a  1/14000000 chance and its only 6 numbers!  ****Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to where that very special nothing that exploded came from? I'm not looking for an argument, but whichever way you spin this, you have have faith in whoever presents this, proof is scarce and at best filled with assumptions and 'wip' knowledge. Going back and checking theories is clearly not an option. The earth used to be flat until some guy managed to sail around it. So....who believes in global warming?

+1
I don't want to go into arguments for or against evolution! but to present the theory of evolution and big bang theory as the final authority on creation, when there are so many unanswered question regarding the theories is counter productive to the scientic mindset the theories presuppose. there are a number of  scientific flaws regarding the theories that to present them as scientific is ludicrous in my opinion.

[KenMasters]

Ehm.....I dunno, but the whole concept of evolution, as presented, really stretches the imagination. By a long sequence of highly improbable events, *nothing* exploded and started creating everything and is even now continuing to expand into the great nothingness. Meanwhile, by a major amount of chance coming together, the universe with its intricate laws came into perfect balance. THEN, randomly thrown toghether molecules got together in a very special way to form the building blocks of life. Interestingly, they got together and actually started living, taking in other elemnts and later other forms of life, multiplying, getting more complex untill one day it crawled from a puddle of mud and became the multitude of living beings we now know as fauna. I've heard few things more implausible in my life. For that to make sense, you will need an infinitely long timescale because of the infinitely small probability of that coming together. Which kind of explains why the earth is claimed to be older by a log scale every so many years. If you can believe that theory, putting your life savings into the lotto is a no brainer. Thats a  1/14000000 chance and its only 6 numbers!  ****Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to where that very special nothing that exploded came from? I'm not looking for an argument, but whichever way you spin this, you have have faith in whoever presents this, proof is scarce and at best filled with assumptions and 'wip' knowledge. Going back and checking theories is clearly not an option.

You have obviously not bothered to put in a stitch of research.

Claiming the chances of this or that being so unlikely is an old creationist tactic. It's fallacious. I'll leave it up to Douglas Adams to illustrate:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

[Andrew]

+1
I don't want to go into arguments for or against evolution! but to present the theory of evolution and big bang theory as the final authority on creation, when there are so many unanswered question regarding the theories is counter productive to the scientic mindset the theories presuppose. there are a number of  scientific flaws regarding the theories that to present them as scientific is ludicrous in my opinion.

Hmm, I don't think the scientific community claims to have the final say on evolution and the Big Bang theory - they openly admit that as new research brings more information to light, that the models change accordingly. It's generally the um, other side who tend to be very much set in their ways as to what is the truth and what isn't (in their view).

[KenMasters]

Hmm, I don't think the scientific community claims to have the final say on evolution and the Big Bang theory - they openly admit that as new research brings more information to light, that the models change accordingly. It's generally the um, other side who tend to be very much set in their ways as to what is the truth and what isn't (in their view).

Exactly. Sadly they equate science with scripture.

[---------]

Correct, about 50,000 - 60,000 years. As mentioned they use a number of methods to determine age, but it seems as these dating techniques are all grouped under carbon dating. They would use uranium disequilibrium for older stuff (about 400,000 years). For older stuff they go Potassium to argon (10,000 - 3 billion years), etc. There are numerous isotopic techniques. The oldest one we know of is dendrochronology, which is the dating of tree rings (up to 12,000 years). It is not called carbon dating, and goes with the weird ones like glass hydration and amino acid racemization. The 11 year old giving me the information can think of a few more but I am tired of typing ...... They do not have TV, DSTV, etc, are home schooled and he took a fancy in peaolentology. He can already name most of the extinct dinousaur species, when they lived, etc... benefit of a non-TV lifestyle

Ha ha. That is brilliant Morne. You are raising a future generation of scientists - good on you.

Ehm.....I dunno, but the whole concept of evolution, as presented, really stretches the imagination. By a long sequence of highly improbable events, *nothing* exploded and started creating everything and is even now continuing to expand into the great nothingness. Meanwhile, by a major amount of chance coming together, the universe with its intricate laws came into perfect balance. THEN, randomly thrown toghether molecules got together in a very special way to form the building blocks of life. Interestingly, they got together and actually started living, taking in other elemnts and later other forms of life, multiplying, getting more complex untill one day it crawled from a puddle of mud and became the multitude of living beings we now know as fauna. I've heard few things more implausible in my life. For that to make sense, you will need an infinitely long timescale because of the infinitely small probability of that coming together. Which kind of explains why the earth is claimed to be older by a log scale every so many years. If you can believe that theory, putting your life savings into the lotto is a no brainer. Thats a  1/14000000 chance and its only 6 numbers!  ****Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to where that very special nothing that exploded came from? I'm not looking for an argument, but whichever way you spin this, you have have faith in whoever presents this, proof is scarce and at best filled with assumptions and 'wip' knowledge. Going back and checking theories is clearly not an option. The earth used to be flat until some guy managed to sail around it. So....who believes in global warming?

Atjan, while I also have no intention of getting into an argument, allow me to point out that most of the claims you make are completely spurious. For instance, the age of the earth (4.6 billion years) has been settled for some time now and the idea that 'proof is scarce' is simply a mindless mantra repeated ad nauseam by the uninformed. The scientific community is largely agreed on the veracity of evolution. If you are not going to believe science, which proceeds on the basis of research and peer review, what are you going to believe? You clearly do not understand how evolution works and, talking of improbable, is the idea that some supernatural being created everything in six days about 6000 years ago more believable? What really boggles the mind is the fact that the people who are studying these things (e.g. evolutionary biologists and molecular geneticists) have no doubts about the truth of evolution, but people who know next to nothing about this are always the ones to express 'doubts'.