A "problem" with science...

[Cygnus]

So I was debating a creationist, and after much back and forth, this was his response:

"(Insert Pleasantries Here)...but you still haven't proven anything. Man has a science that states this is that old and that is this old, there is no proof whatsoever that its correct because we have nothing to compare it to for accuracy. I'm not saying what is correct but science sure doesn't deserve to be the last word on this subject, it was created by man and as far as I know he still doesn't walk on water."

There are a number of obvious points I'm going to bring up-science never proves anything and the like- but what is the best response to the first sentence? Is a simple self check- I.E. Every method provides the same result, we can check against other isotopes- the best answer? Or is there a deeper response?

 

[Aught3]

Science walking on water, anyway...

Yeah multiple independent lines of evidence all giving the same answer is the usual response. Tree rings are another way to date things if you want something outside of 'tope dating.

 

[Nelson]

Man has a science that states this is that old and that is this old, there is no proof whatsoever that its correct because we have nothing to compare it to for accuracy.

I don't even really know what he is talking about here. It seems that he is referring specifically to radiometric dating. If this is the case, then there is also sorts of information to be found online. However, it is my experience that if someone makes a statement that shows such an unbelievable lack of understanding, like the one above, they aren't going to be open to such information, let alone be able to understand it even if they were.

The main points here would be to get him to clarify what he thinks science IS, and then for you to explain what science REALLY is. You could also ask him what he thinks the best method of understanding our universe is if not science. He will likely counter with a religious viewpoint. This opens up a whole new can of worms as the argument of scientific progress vs. religious progress is fairly easy one to make.

If you want to go more specific with the radiometric dating thing, then ask him to clarify more on that point. WHAT exactly does he think is wrong with the dating methods, and WHY does he think that. He likely won't have any solid reasoning behind it, and perhaps you could make him realize that as he tries to further explain his argument.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I always think a great measure of how long the universe has been here is the size of the universe. Did God create light that had already traveled 90% of the distance between the earth and stars millions of lightyears away at the moment he created the universe so we could see stars that are that far away? Did he do this just to deceive us and make the universe look old and vast? Why does astronomy independantly estimate the Universe at billions of years old using different techniques, which just happens to allow for the earth to also be very old?

Geological wear makes the earth look old, Radiometric dating makes the earth look old, biology makes the earth look old, astronomy makes the earth look old... WHY does every science seem to confirm this idea, and why is it wrong on this one thing when it has been right in predicting orbits and eclipses and technology and weather and blahbity blah?

Here are some other methods other than radiometric dating: Ice core samples, tree rings, sediment varves, electron spin resonance, cosmic ray exposure, coral growth rates etc etc.... some of these are only reliable to 100,000 years or so, but they still show a much longer earth than claimed by creationists.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html#page 19

 

[GoodKat]

Did God create light that had already traveled 90% of the distance between the earth and stars millions of lightyears away at the moment he created the universe so we could see stars that are that far away? Did he do this just to deceive us and make the universe look old and vast?

I like to point out the fact that if we see an object which is 1.2 million light years away, we see it as it was 1.2 million years ago, if the universe is only 6000 years old, we are seeing something that was never really there, in other words, an illusion! Intentional deceit by the God who claims not to be the author of confusion!

 

[lightbulbsun88]

Ask him to list and explain his criticisms of radiometric dating. Out of all dating methods this seems to be the most criticized one for unknown reasons. Actually, scratch that first sentence. Ask him to explain what radiometric dating is. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that he doesn't have the slightest clue.

 

[irmerk]

I think the best response is clarifying for him, since he does not know what he is talking about, that science is not definitive, infallible or dogmatic. It is self correcting and ever-progressing. The point at base value is that the scientific conclusions thus far are the best supported by the best evidence. Hence, you, him, or anyone else can present better evidence at any time. Then, however, you should point out what other people have pretty much said through this thread: Many, many different forms and methods of dating, in the particular subject he brought up, are used which point to the same number within a margin of error which are each rigorously validated and scrutinized and come out sound.

It boils down to the fact that science as it is right now is just the best supported ideas by the evidence. If you do not like it or think you have a better idea, present it, fucktard.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Are you having this conversation online? Then you might want to point out that the same understanding of physics that allows for the creation of computers, high-speed Internet, LCD displays, and everything else that makes the conversation possible, is the same understanding of physics that predicts the age of the universe. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of science you feel like agreeing with, based on foolish superstition, because science isn't simply a list of isolated bits of information. Science is a method of understanding the universe that resembles a giant web, with every piece of knowledge supporting every other piece. Whenever a claim is made in science, it is checked against everything else we know, and everything we know is checked against the knew knowledge. It all fits together.

That means that you can't just say "I don't accept the age of the universe" without rejecting the huge patches of science that support the current theory. If you do, you are saying that scientists are really wizards, able to create all the technology in the world without having any clue as to how any of it works.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

yeah... this isn't so much a 'problem' with science as... he's an idiot.

 

[Sparky]

I would point out the number of techniques we can use and how they all complement each other nicely. Two good examples are ice core sampling from the Antarctic (I'm not sure if it is done in the Artic but I would guess so) and dendrochronology (tree ring dating). Also you could as you mentioned talk about how other isotopes with different half lives also result in the same results.

Just to let you know some of these guys have read how dating methods don't always work and they would be correct. The problem is that they don't understand that we know when we can apply which dating method so that we can get an accurate date for a given object. A typical example is:

"The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago!"

This is true. It is the result of the reservoir effect (look it up). I thought I'd tell you about this one as it is very popular.

 

[buzzausa]

So I was debating a creationist, and after much back and forth, this was his response:

"(Insert Pleasantries Here)...but you still haven't proven anything. Man has a science that states this is that old and that is this old, there is no proof whatsoever that its correct because we have nothing to compare it to for accuracy. I'm not saying what is correct but science sure doesn't deserve to be the last word on this subject, it was created by man and as far as I know he still doesn't walk on water."

There are a number of obvious points I'm going to bring up-science never proves anything and the like- but what is the best response to the first sentence? Is a simple self check- I.E. Every method provides the same result, we can check against other isotopes- the best answer? Or is there a deeper response?

So we should interrogate the mighty basilisk for the ultimate and most autoritative voice on science?

Anyway, as most people already said, it is the convergency of multiple, diverse methods of analysis that warrants accuracy.

 

[Deleted member 499]

Ask him to list and explain his criticisms of radiometric dating. Out of all dating methods this seems to be the most criticized one for unknown reasons. Actually, scratch that first sentence. Ask him to explain what radiometric dating is. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that he doesn't have the slightest clue.

I've found that the most popular statements are that "the great flood could have sped up decay rates" and that atmospheric changes could do so as well :lol:

The simplest way to deal with it though, as someone already said, is to point out that other forms of evidence support the conclusions. One example is dendrochronology giving a good fit with radiocarbon dating. You could also point out the different isotopes used, U-Pb, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, K-Ar and a whole host of other techniques all give reasonably consistent dates. In relation to the age of the earth (well, really the solar system) we also get correlative dates from extraterrestrial samples which could not possibly have experienced the same conditions as earth rocks.

 

[1greylikethis]

We can also only fly above it:

As for dating methods, most creationists hate any dating that has to do with radioactive decay... so here's other ways:

1. The size of the universe is so large that light from stars take millions of years to reach us. Of course, they'll counter with "the speed of light is decaying" argument, which is based on no evidence; plus, speeding light up makes the universe older due to E=mc,².

2. As stated before, dendrochronology, or the study of tree rings.

3. Lord Kelvin in 1862 calculated that the Earth was 20-400 million years old through the assumption that the Earth was a ball of molten rock and calculated the time necessary to cool to the temperatures of today.

4. Measuring the amount of higher elements in the sun, which build up after millions of years.

Of course, he/she could reject all of this and be ignorant.
If you really care, ask him/her what they would consider proof. Otherwise, ignore these fools. They're not worth your time.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Dating methods were made up by humans. The Bible was made up by humans.

Dating methods can be independantly verified. The Bible cannot be independantly verified.

If relying on science is an appeal to authority, then relying on the Bible is an appeal to lack of authority.

 

[Canto]

Unfortunately since this is not a live debate, it is less easy to show his lack of knowledge. I would ask him to name as many dating methods as he personally knows exist, along with a brief bit about what each one measures for its dates, along with the age range the method is used for. Make it clear that AIG or any other creationist source is biased, and for the short term, agree that peer reviewed science journals are also biased. Chances are good you can both settle on Wikipedia being a more "neutral" source you both can use. I would think that this way he can both learn, and you could have a more productive discussion.